RE: FW: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-08 Thread Sheahan, Ryan
PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question OK, I have a dumb question. When we talk about "default" encapsulation, are we talking about an actual command? The "encapsulation" command can be entered in Ethernet interface mode, I think. (I'm not near

Re: FW: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-08 Thread Priscilla Oppenheimer
n is with the ipx network encap command. Thanks for the interesting conversation. Priscilla At 10:59 AM 2/8/01, Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote: >-Original Message- >From: Leigh Anne Chisholm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: February 8, 2001 10:17 AM >To: Jim Dixon >Subject:

FW: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-08 Thread Leigh Anne Chisholm
-Original Message- From: Leigh Anne Chisholm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: February 8, 2001 10:17 AM To: Jim Dixon Subject: RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question Actually, what I'm saying is that John wanted to know whether or not he should change the default Ethernet frame

Re: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-07 Thread anthony kim
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 t

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-07 Thread Leigh Anne Chisholm
ROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of anthony kim Sent: February 7, 2001 8:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question Hi, I had to take a look at rfc 894 (ethernet) and rfc 1042 (ieee802) from rfc 1042: " It is possible to use the Ethernet link l

Re: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-07 Thread anthony kim
> >> > > 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

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-07 Thread Howard C. Berkowitz
ect: RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > Hi, >> >> > > >> >> > > I'm sorry I did not cover the rest of the ethernat frame >> >>types. This was >&

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-07 Thread Tony van Ree
. 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 > > >> &

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-07 Thread Priscilla Oppenheimer
owever 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? > >> > > >

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-07 Thread John Neiberger
nd > >> > > 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 challengin

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-07 Thread Howard C. Berkowitz
t 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

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-06 Thread John Neiberger
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 > > &

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-06 Thread Priscilla Oppenheimer
ent 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: An

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-06 Thread Tony van Ree
> -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 t

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-06 Thread Leigh Anne Chisholm
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 co

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-06 Thread Tony van Ree
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 >

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-06 Thread Leigh Anne Chisholm
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

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-06 Thread Tony van Ree
router do with other frame types not explicitly specified? > > > -- Leigh Anne > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Priscilla Oppenheimer > Sent: February 5, 2001 2:03 PM > To: John Neiberger; [EMAIL PROTECTED

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-06 Thread Leigh Anne Chisholm
Leigh Anne -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Priscilla Oppenheimer Sent: February 5, 2001 2:03 PM To: John Neiberger; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question At 07:38 AM 2/5/01, John Neiberger wrote: >While studying for C

Re: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-06 Thread John Neiberger
Thanks! I had just never stopped to think too deeply about *why* different network-layer protocols would pick one ethernet frame type over another. John > At 07:38 AM 2/5/01, John Neiberger wrote: > >While studying for CIT, I noticed something that had never occurred to me > >before. The

Re: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-05 Thread Priscilla Oppenheimer
At 07:38 AM 2/5/01, John Neiberger wrote: >While studying for CIT, I noticed something that had never occurred to me >before. The default ethernet frame type on a Cisco router is Ethernet_II, The default frame type depends on the payload. The default for IP is Ethernet V2 because the IP industr

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-05 Thread John Neiberger
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > John Neiberger > Sent: February 5, 2001 8:38 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question > > > While studying for CIT, I noticed something that had never occurred to me > before. The default

RE: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-05 Thread Leigh Anne Chisholm
anding why things work the way they do is the best way to understand and troubleshoot networks. -- Leigh Anne -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Neiberger Sent: February 5, 2001 8:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Another 802.3 an

Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question

2001-02-05 Thread John Neiberger
While studying for CIT, I noticed something that had never occurred to me before. The default ethernet frame type on a Cisco router is Ethernet_II, but the only physical interface specified by Ethernet version 2 is 50-ohm coax, IIRC, similar to 10base5 On 10baseT or 100baseTX interfaces, which a