Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!jade!ucbvax!ALE.TRW.COM!geoffb
From: geoffb@ALE.TRW.COM (G. Geoffrey Baehr)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Ethernet bridge
Message-ID: <8711021615.AA05254@ale.TRW.COM>
Date: Mon, 2-Nov-87 11:15:12 EST
Article-I.D.: ale.8711021615.AA05254
Posted: Mon Nov  2 11:15:12 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Nov-87 09:13:00 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 15


Concerning Charles Hedrick's note about level 2 bridges, it is precisely
the quality of bridge management software that allows one to depend on a
level 2 solution. What information does exist from these bridges currently
seems to be non-uniform and of questionable value. Is there some bridge
out there which does have a specified reporting mechanism,or one which may
be queried in some manner. I have in mind the RBMS (Remote Bridge Management
Software) from DEC, but alas, this spec is not released by DEC to we common
folk. Without a diagnostic/reporting mechanism, level 2 bridges appear to
offer more potential for net-wide disaster. 

Geoffrey Baehr

I would be interested in knowing whether any vendor intends to implement 
portions of the HEMS work in their current or future products.