Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrstp!npdiss1!pasek
From: pasek@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Michael A. Pasek)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Phase 2 and FDDI
Summary: Apple's right, CISCO's wrong
Keywords: CISCO FDDI AppleTalk Phase II
Message-ID: <853@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM>
Date: 29 Jan 91 15:04:46 GMT
Expires: 4 Feb 91 00:00:00 GMT
References: <1991Jan17.205340.11378@pbs.org> <48241@apple.Apple.COM> <29515@usc>
Reply-To: pasek@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM (M. A. Pasek)
Followup-To: comp.protocols.appletalk
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Comten, Inc.
Lines: 14

In article <29515@usc> frankc@skat.usc.edu (Frank Callaham III) writes:
>I know the "benifits" of Phase II, the problem I have, is that the
>Cisco Routers cannot currently route EtherTalk Phase II packets over
>a FDDI backbone.(This is according to my net admin.  He says that
>apple did something "wrong/strange" with the E-Talk2 packets)

Frank's net admin is misinformed.  Apple did the "correct" (according to the
IEEE standards) thing with AppleTalk Phase II.  The problem is that CISCO's
FDDI implementation ASSUMES that all 802.2 SNAP headers have a zero OrgID
field....which they do not.

M. A. Pasek               Software Development              NCR Comten, Inc.
(612) 638-7668               NP Development               2700 N. Snelling Ave.
pasek@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM                               Roseville, MN  55113