Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!imagen!cpr%Shasta@su-score
From: cpr%Shasta@su-score@imagen.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: none
Message-ID: <4073@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Aug-83 13:28:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.4073
Posted: Wed Aug 10 13:28:00 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Aug-83 00:12:09 EDT
Lines: 19

I must re-state my flame concerning 4.2bsd Unix TCP/IP implementation problems.
4.2 fails to comply with a de facto standard for encapsulating IP packets on
10mb Ethernet.  I hear from MIT that this is about to become a DoD standard,
so then my flame will be valid: 4.2 doesn't implement TCP/IP on Ethernet
properly.

As Bill Shannon suggests, people supporting 4.2 will probably have to adapt
it to talk with other implementations which don't support the trailing-IP-header
packet type.  Negotiation with private TCP options doesn't seem to be a bad
idea; I don't quite understand Bill's comment that "it's another layer of
software."  I think it's just a private negotiation, just like the maximum
segment size negotiation (though the TCP purists may exclaim that mixing this
level (IP encapsulation) with the TCP level is a violation of aesthetics).

Again, I'm truly amazed that no one has yelled at Berkeley for this deviation.
As 4.2 comes out, and everyone tries to connect up to their other TCP/IP
Ethernet implementations, fur is going to fly.

/Chris Ryland, IMAGEN