So you are saying that the legal definition of a LAN ("a network which
crosses no legal boundary"), vs the legal definition of a WAN (" a
network that crosses a legal boundary") is irrelevant, and the only
agency that defines LANs is IEEE 802? I can think of some folks that
might take exception to that.
I say that as someone who was building MAC bridges before the term was
coined...
On Apr 21, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:f...@cisco.com]
Gee, in a layer 3 context, I use the term "LAN" to mean a
"Local Area
Network", a layer 2 domain, perhaps instantiated in a switch
or a set
of them, that connects some number of layer 3 devices. Examples
include Ethernet domains, 802.11, 802.15.4, 802.16, 802.21, ...
How does the IEEE define a LAN?
I take your point that some of these probably should be
translated to
"IP Subnet".
IEEE 802.1D says that a LAN ties together devices with MAC layers. So,
for example, an Ethernet LAN in which (layer 1) hubs interconnect the
hosts will support multiple hosts in a single LAN. But if you
introduce
bridges (aka layer 2 switches), then you're tying together separate
individual LANs into a "bridged LAN," or catenet.
Clause 6 of 802.1D:
"MAC Bridges interconnect the separate IEEE 802 LANs that compose a
Bridged Local Area Network by
relaying and filtering frames between the separate MACs of the bridged
LANs."
So in today's typical networks, the LAN becomes just a single link
between one host and one switch. Seemed odd to me too, but Rich
Seifert
caught me on this more than once.
What you were adressing, though, seemed to be IP subnets, i.e.
networks
having common IP address prefixes. I guess that the "IP subnet" term
doesn't apply to IPv6.
Bert
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
