Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM!DCP
From: DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: ARP, ethernet and starlan
Message-ID: <870206100333.5.DCP@KOYAANISQATSI.S4CC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Fri, 6-Feb-87 10:03:00 EST
Article-I.D.: KOYAANIS.870206100333.5.DCP
Posted: Fri Feb  6 10:03:00 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Feb-87 01:44:09 EST
References: <12276759328.14.ROMKEY@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 17
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


    Date: Thu 5 Feb 87 21:53:09-EST
    From: John Romkey <ROMKEY@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>

    I hate to be nit picky (really, I do) but ARP has both a hardware type
    field and a hardware address length field. I suppose the address length field
    could be of use on networks where the hardware address was variable length?

That, and the ability for monitors to be able to parse the
request/responses without knowing the semantics of the hardware or
software types.  (Though how it could not know the hardware type is
probably rhetorical.)

    Yes, Starlan is semantically the same as ethernet, so I according to your
    argument they should have the same hardware type. I tend to agree...
				    - john
    -------