On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 09:22:16PM -0700, Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote:
[snip]
>Which leads to the question - why a default frame type, if the default frame
>type isn't used as an encapsulation frame type for creating Ethernet frames
>received by an end-system?
The answer is mu. The default frame type means: the frame type the
router uses at the Data Link layer when encapsulation has not been
specifically defined. If you use the default encapsulation on a
network for which the end systems are not configured, there will be no
communication. You must manually configure the encapsulation to match
the network's. If your real question is, why did cisco decide to
use novell-ether has default? Or why did the IETF specify that
Ethernet framing ought to be the default for IP networks, without
looking up more references, I'd say it's largely historical and for
backwards compatibility reasons.
>
>Essentially, it's been my understanding that the default Ethernet_II frame
>encapsulation has been used where a packet originates within the router
>requiring a "first-time" Ethernet encapsultion. By that, I'm referring to
>telnet packets originating within the router - they need to be encapsulated
>in something as they go out an Ethernet interface. Alternately, packets
>received from a serial interface, token-ring interface, or FDDI interface
>that needs to be "popped-into" an Ethernet frame format would use the
>Ethernet_II encapsulation method.
Come on... you don't really believe this...
8^)
[snip]
>It was just one of those things that made me go "hmm..." when I first
>stumbled onto the question...
>
>I think I think too much.
>
>(-:
>
Best regards,
Anthony
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
