Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!ATHOS.RUTGERS.EDU!hedrick From: hedrick@ATHOS.RUTGERS.EDU (Chuck Hedrick) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: 802 (.2).3 TCP/IP Message-ID: Date: 27 May 88 00:09:03 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 18 I've just looked at RFC1042 again. While it is true that I have in the past tended to confuse 802.3 and 802.3, it's not clear that I did so in this message. In a paragraph at the end of the RFC, it uses language very similar to mine, referring to an 802.3 and an Ethernet link layer as separate standards. Since 802.3 includes wording saying that there is a length code rather than a type code, I generally consider that the term 802.3 is properly applied only to systems whose software actually do that. This is of course normally coupled with 802.2 as well. I did not mean to imply that 802.3 was used over token ring, etc. Obviously there are other 802.x standards for these other media. What I was trying to say was that in my view, RFC1042-style encapsulation will be used for all newer media, but that traditional 10MHz Ethernet implementations should continue to use the traditional encapsulation and not the one defined in RFC1042 (which while it may use the same basic ARP packets, presumes the use of 802.3 and in most cases 802.2, so that the headers put in front of the ARP packets would make it not interoperable with a system such as 4.3 BSD).