Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mar
From: mar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mark Rosenstein)
Newsgroups: net.lan
Subject: Re: Token rings, error reporting in
Message-ID: <11@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-Jan-86 15:52:40 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.11
Posted: Fri Jan 31 15:52:40 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Feb-86 20:43:31 EST
References: <952@wdl1.UUCP>
Reply-To: mar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mark Rosenstein)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 22
Keywords: proNET

In article <952@wdl1.UUCP> jbn@wdl1.UUCP writes:
>
>     Which token rings actually provide indication of non-delivery to the 
>sender?  I've been told that the Cambridge Ring does and Proteon does not.
>Who has hard information on this?
>
>					John Nagle

The Proteon proNET ring does have hardware acknowlegement.  The sender
removes the packet from the ring, not the receiver.  However, the receiver
does reset a bit at the end of the packet as it goes by if it was received
successfully.  In this way broadcast can work the same as sending regular
packets.
					-Mark Rosenstein

work:	mar@proteon.arpa	(617) 655-3340
other:	mar@borax.lcs.mit.edu	(617) 497-4863
	...ihnp4!mit-eddie!mar

Disclaimer: I do work for Proteon, but as a programmer not a hardware
person.  I think I've just told the truth, although this is not an
official statement of Proteon, Inc.