Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!GVAX.CS.CORNELL.EDU!jqj
From: jqj@GVAX.CS.CORNELL.EDU (J Q Johnson)
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: the length of 802.3 + 802.2 header
Message-ID: <8608231045.AA28064@gvax.cs.cornell.edu>
Date: Sat, 23-Aug-86 06:45:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: gvax.8608231045.AA28064
Posted: Sat Aug 23 06:45:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Aug-86 20:09:19 EDT
References: <3362@cornell.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: jqj@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (J Q Johnson)
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY
Lines: 9
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

I don't completely see why the fuss over odd sized headers.  Presumably,
the encapsulation of the contained protocol is a separate standardization
issue from the header formats.  Just as 4.2bsd chose a nonobvious
encapsulation for ip on Ethernet (trailers), we could legislate that
ip under 802.2 is required to include an adequate number of pad bytes
to force word (or whatever) alignment.  I don't care much if OSI IP is
slow -- I plan to continue to run tcp/ip at least until it becomes
feasible to put a barrel shifter in my Ethernet interfaces!  However,
I will need to use 802.2 and saps as transports...