Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!AI.AI.MIT.EDU!JBVB
From: JBVB@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("James B. VanBokkelen")
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: ... Transmission of IP Datagrams over IEEE 802 ...
Message-ID: <273298.871023.JBVB@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 23-Oct-87 00:29:16 EST
Article-I.D.: AI.273298.871023.JBVB
Posted: Fri Oct 23 00:29:16 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Oct-87 13:27:34 EST
Sender: operator@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 16

Well, one of the problems here is that IBM has defined 802.5, more or
less, and they seem to have felt they wanted to sell: 1) MAC-level
bridges that don't learn connectivity like Ethernet bridges do, instead
requiring that packets be source-routed, and 2) MAC-level bridges
which can only hack datagrams about 1/10th the size of the MTU of the
connected LANs.

Given that they are still successfully selling EBCDIC architectures, I'm
not sure what we can do besides document what they have legislated.  So,
ARP and related MAC-level routing schemes take a nasty hit, and useful
MAC-level transparency amongst 802.x LANs becomes much harder to achieve.

Anyway, at the 802.2 level, the encapsulation is indeed identical.  As
Greg has pointed out, 802.2 is LLC, not MAC.

jbvb