OK, Leigh Anne, you're just going to have to come out and tell us what you
are getting at. The suspense is killing me. &;-)
The only time I've ever configured an Ethernet encapsulation, it has been
part of the ipx network command. As we know, Novell mucked things up and
supports four frame types, so being able to configure the frame type is
necessary for IPX. A unique feature of IPX is that you can configure
multiple networks on a single segment. Each of them must have a different
encapsulation. In fact that is how you support networks with devices
configured for different encapsulations.
I don't even know that you can configure the encapsulation for IP on
Ethernet on a router. Can you? Or is that what you're getting at. IP
doesn't care.
With IP, 99% of the world uses Ethernet V2 (dest, src, EtherType). I just
tried to change it on my PC and I couldn't, although I think I have seen
that capability on other PCs. But my guess is that if I did change it, the
router could still handle it.
Priscilla
At 12:33 PM 2/7/01, Tony van Ree wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I understood it to tell me that there is a common method used by a number
>of manufacturers and protocols. Some other companies and protocols had
>made some changes. The default was used as it was the most
>common. Ethernet_II had been around for quite a while before the 802.3
>and almost all devices manufacturers ethernet cards and the like could
>handle Ethernet_II but not necessarily 802.3.
>
>Maybe I mis understood.
>
>Teunis
>
>
>On Tuesday, February 06, 2001 at 05:36:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I did read Priscilla's post. She addressed the issue of WHY Ethernet_II is
> > the default frame type selected for IP, but didn't examine why IP
> requires a
> > default frame type in the first place. IPX uses a default frame type
> > because different Ethernet encapsulations are not able to co-exist
> within an
> > IPX network -- however different Ethernet encapsulations (Ethernet_II and
> > Ethernet 802.3) ARE able to co-exist within an IP network. As such,
> what is
> > the importance of a default Ethernet encapsulation for IP?
> >
> > That's what I've been challenging John to think about. Once he understands
> > where the default Ethernet encapsulation comes into play, he could answer
> > his question as to whether there "would there be a good reason to change to
> > a
> > different frame type, or would we only benefit from a different frame type
> > in a non-IP environment or mixed environment".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tony van Ree [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: February 6, 2001 5:06 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; John Neiberger; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm sorry I did not cover the rest of the ethernat frame types. This was
> > covered earlier this week. Priscilla covered it really well in one of her
> > replys on a similar question.
> >
> > Teunis
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 06, 2001 at 04:55:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, with respect to IPX, that's correct--and that answers my first
> > > question.
> > >
> > > My second question asked about what was the purpose of a default Ethernet
> > > frame type for use with IP. Using IPX as an analogy, does a router only
> > > route Ethernet_II frames if no Ethernet frame type has been specified?
> > Does
> > > a router drop IEEE 802.3 frames by default? To route IEEE 802.3 frames,
> > is
> > > any additional configuration required?
> > >
> > > And with that, we're lead back to John's original question: What is the
> > > purpose of a default Ethernet frame type for IP?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > > Tony van Ree
> > > Sent: February 6, 2001 2:51 PM
> > > To: Leigh Anne Chisholm; John Neiberger; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Cc: Priscilla Oppenheimer
> > > Subject: RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Those not specified by the router are either routed by the server or
> > produce
> > > IPX protol errors and are dropped.
> > >
> > > It is important not to have the various frame types set on the servers or
> > > service advertisers. If for example you are normally using Novell-Ether
> > > (802.3) and you put in a server using Netware 4.x running SAP (802.2).
> > Now
> > > when you put in the first server you configure both the SAP and Novell
> > Ether
> > > in the server. You have 802.3 (Novell-ether) configured in the router.
> > > Pull out the original server and you have no network. Othen you will lose
> > > half of your local clients.
> > >
> > > Have lose networks and or frame types can also create some horrible
> little
> > > routing loops and unwanted traffic. SAP's, RIP updates etc.
> > >
> > > Let the router route and servers serve.
> > >
> > > Another one that sometimes grabs you.
> > >
> > > Teunis,
> > > Hobart, Tasmania
> > > Australia
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>www.tasmail.com
>
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
