Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!sun.soe.clarkson.edu!nelson
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: TCP/IP Fiber Optic Ring Backbone
Message-ID: <674@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>
Date: 1 Apr 88 15:18:10 GMT
References: <8803292224.AA13808@trout.nosc.mil>
Reply-To: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu.UUCP (Russ Nelson)
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
Lines: 25

In article <8803292224.AA13808@trout.nosc.mil> carrs@TROUT.NOSC.MIL (Stephen M. Carr) writes:
>    c.  Implementation of IEEE 802.3 in a ring topology seems to
>me would require something akin to the opposite of IEEE 802.4
>Token Bus.  In other words, implement me a bus protocol in a ring
>topology.  Not that IEEE 802.4 doesn't make sense, but it appears
>that essentially the MAP folks have implemented a ring protocol
>in a bus environment.  I am sure they have their reasons, the MAP
>community isn't stupid.  But what about implementing IEEE 802.3
>in a ring topology?  Is this for real?  I confess, I am ignorant.

Well, I did a Master's thesis on a network that was similar to what
you're talking about.  Physically and electrically the network was a
token passing ring.  Logically, it was a bus, in the sense that there
was only one transmitter active at a time, and all information was
received by all nodes at the same time.  So, I do think that IEEE
802.3 could be implemented in a ring technology, albeit without token
passing.

As an aside, the header that I used was remarkably similar to the
Ethernet header, but with one octet addresses.  I guess round wheels
get reinvented all the time.
-russ
-- 
-russ
AT&T: (315)268-6591  BITNET: NELSON@CLUTX  Internet: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu
GEnie: BH01  Compu$erve: 70441,205