Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cs.utexas.edu!halley!bc
From: bc@halley.UUCP (Bill Crews)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Token Ring vs. Ethernet
Message-ID: <419@halley.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 89 22:04:57 GMT
References: <5786@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <18809@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: bc@halley.UUCP (Bill Crews)
Organization: Tandem Computers, Austin, TX
Lines: 26

In article <18809@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> glass@tehran.berkeley.edu (Brett Glass) writes:
>In article <5786@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> narten@cs.purdue.EDU (Thomas Narten) writes:
>
>>In article  <18796@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> glass@tehran.berkeley.edu writes:
>>Why does TCP/IP favor Ethernet?  Please explain.  
>
>The use of a "foreign" internetworking protocol such as TCP/IP in a
>benchmark will favor Ethernet because it will negate the value of many
>of the Token Ring's unique features. (The Token Ring may still prevail,
>however, depending on how you've set up your benchmurk... er, mark.)

First, ARPA IP and ISO IP are purported to be extremely similar.  I don't know
the details, but perhaps it is likely that 802.5's behavior beneath ARPA IP
will be similar beneath ISO IP.

Second, regardless of the virtues .5 might have, if most of the widely used
layer 3 protocols "negate the value of many of the Token Ring's unique
features", then perhaps these unique features are doomed to go to waste.

I'm not knocking .5.  Just your argument.  This isn't comp.os.research.  The
real world matters here.

-bc
-- 
Bill Crews                        bc@halley.UUCP
(512) 244-8350                    ..!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!halley!bc