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
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
>
>> > > 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
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
>&
. 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
> > >> &
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?
> >> > >
>
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
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
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
> > &
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
> -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
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
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
Hmm
My first supposition is that they decided to default to the oldest frame
type for interoperability. A few years ago, there were probably more
network devices that used only the Ethernet_II frame type. As technology
progressed, vendors added new frame types to their devices, with the
To answer your question, my question to you John, would be this:
What is the purpose of the default Ethernet frame type on a Cisco router?
You've posed an excellent question - one that I mulled over for quite some
time until I answered the question I've asked you to solve... Understanding
why t
20 matches
Mail list logo
