Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!ucbvax!amdahl.UUCP!sjl From: sjl@amdahl.UUCP.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: IEEE 802 and ISO Message-ID: <8607030023.AA11136@amdahl> Date: Wed, 2-Jul-86 20:23:50 EDT Article-I.D.: amdahl.8607030023.AA11136 Posted: Wed Jul 2 20:23:50 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Jul-86 08:17:13 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 47 Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip Summary: Don't get your knickers in a twist References: <860626161800.4.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM> Reply-To: sjl@amdahl.UUCP (Steve Langdon) Organization: Amdahl Corp, Advanced Systems Planning Keywords: 802 SNAP LSAP ARP protocol_id In article <860626161800.4.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM> DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM (David C. Plummer) over-reacts to a missguided belief that the standards community is not providing a usable alternative to the protocol ID field that was present on Ethernet. The current proposal is that a reserved LSAP will be defined to identify a Network Layer entity that operates a subnetwork access protocol which provides the protocol ID function. The protocol header is five octets; the first three octets identify an organization (using the same values as those used in the first part of the MAC address), and the remaining two octets replace the old protocol ID. > Aren't they also snobbish enough not to need ARP? Don't you just "send > it" and it "magically" gets there? While the OSI network address structure does not suffer from the length limitions of the Arpa IP, an ARP equivalent is seen as useful. For this reason ANSI ASC X3S3.3 has developed a protocol that provides ARP and ICMP redirect type functions. The US submitted this proposal to ISO a year ago and it has been discussed at two ISO TC/97 SC 6 WG2 meetings. We hope that it will be balloted as a Draft Proposal following the meeting of SC 6 this October. X3S3.3 is also working on EGP/GGP type functions for use with the ISO IP. > 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 topic> 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? No. It would be much more useful if you would participate in the process of developing standards so that you could make sure that pragmatic considerations are not ignored. Flaming when you do not have accurate information is not going to help solve the problems which do exist. Stephen J. Langdon ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!sjl [ The article above is not an official statement from any organization in the known universe. ]