Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!CLASH.CISCO.COM!cire From: cire@CLASH.CISCO.COM Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: 802 (.2).3 TCP/IP Message-ID: <8805251414.AA01829@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 25 May 88 00:38:13 GMT References: <509.580153365@atom> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 45 >> To: hedrick@rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) >> Cc: tcp-ip@sri-nic.ARPA >> Subject: Re: 802 (.2).3 TCP/IP >> Date: Fri, 20 May 88 10:42:45 PDT >> From: Norman Kincl >> >> > while ISO and DECnet phase V will presumably use 802.3. For token >> > rings, etc., that have no existing base of TCP/IP implementations, it >> > appears that only an 802.3 encapsulation will be used. So we should Whoops. That is 802.5 which has an encapsulation that is significantly different than 802.3. I am in the process of implementing this stuff for cisco. On top of the 802.5 lives 802.2 which is what I think you are really talking about. I plan on using 802.2 with the SNAP extension to allow essentialy an ethernet type field. >> > not have compatibility problems in practice. That assumes no vendors >> > get overly eager in their standard-following and try to do an 802.3 >> > encapsulation for Ethernet. HP did that, and lost obviously enough >> > that I think other vendors will be discouraged from following suit. >> cisco also implements 802.2 encapsulations for Ethernet. We use the SNAP extensions to properly identify what type the packet is. >> Are you not confusing 802.3 with 802.2? 802.3 (physical layer) is >> ... >> 802.2 (data link layer) is where the problem comes in. Though you can have >> a system that speaks both quite fluently (eg. HP9000 or cisco box), most >> systems do not do that and provide only one of those data link layers >> (usually Ethernet). Much of what was written is really talking 802.2 while saying 802.3 -c cire|eric Eric B. Decker cisco Systems Menlo Park, California email: cire@cisco.com uSnail: 1360 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone : (415) 326-1941