Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!ucbvax!QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM!DCP From: DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Re: IEEE and Ethernet Message-ID: <860626161800.4.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM> Date: Thu, 26-Jun-86 16:18:00 EDT Article-I.D.: FIREBIRD.860626161800.4.DCP Posted: Thu Jun 26 16:18:00 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jun-86 08:50:12 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 42 Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa Date: Thu, 26 Jun 86 13:29:40 EDT From: jas@brubeck.proteon.com The protocol numbers are in the 802.2 data link control header, which is standard for 802.3, 802.4, and 802.5. They are one byte, and are incredibly stricly regulated. Basically, they're only available to established international standards. There is a (they're called SAPs) for TCP/IP, but that was considered an EXCEPTION to the rule, as TCP/IP is not promulgated by an international standards body. The only allocated SAPs are: ISO IP and TCP/IP. Half of them are "unadministered", IBM has de-facto taken a group for SNA. You'll notice that ARP is not listed. A group of us are trying to work on this issue. (I can provide more gruesome details of the list, if desired.) I seem to remember seeing some mention of this fly by in the past, but took little notice. Oh well, if they want to be snob-headed and try to surpress vendor protocols (what about people who want to run PUP, CHAOS, XNS, DECnet) as well as supress research into protocols (i.e., how to avoid collision of an "unadministered" number between people developing new protocols that would take 4 years to become ISO anyway), I guess it's time to hope the aliens are coming and will put some sense into them. Sorry for the long, run-on sentence, flame. This might be a reasonable thing for tightly controlled comercial products, but comercial products don't pop up out of thin air, they need time for experimentation and development. Aren't they also snobbish enough not to need ARP? Don't you just "send it" and it "magically" gets there? I just realized what's ticking me off. This whole nonsense is a parallel with puritanical religions. It does not have any room for person freedom (e.g., elbow room for new protocols) and it doesn't have any concept of social responsibility (e.g., maybe isn't such a good idea, but AT THIS TIME IN THIS SOCIETY it is a necessary evil). Time to nail a grievance to somebody's door?