Uh, I think you meant UDP ports!!!
If you are going to get on peoples cases for being wrong, at least try and
be correct ;)
No offense of course :)
-Original Message-
From: Peter Slow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: THEY
Does the IEEE get it wrong? Check IEEE 802.1D, the bridging standard. It
uses ports for the physical "interfaces" on a bridge (switch).
Priscilla
At 01:08 PM 8/22/01, Peter Slow wrote:
>an INTERFACE a thing, such as an ethernet or loopback interface.
>a port is a logical device, and NO a loopba
Well, I see the terminology police are at it again
""Peter Slow"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> an INTERFACE a thing, such as an ethernet or loopback interface.
> a port is a logical device, and NO a loopback does not count.
> i meant like tcp p
, August 22, 2001 1:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: THEY ARE NOT PORTS THEY ARE INTERFACES! [7:16843]
Uh, I think you meant UDP ports!!!
If you are going to get on peoples cases for being wrong, at least try and
be correct ;)
No offense of course :)
-Original Message-
From: Peter
Then why are they called port adapters you know slot/adapter/port
serial 0/1/2
would be in the first slot
second adapter
third port
that is where i would interface my cable coming from the dsu
30 minutes to the big seat - the written
8 months to the big stand - the lab
and there i go goofing aroun
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: THEY ARE NOT PORTS THEY ARE INTERFACES! [7:16843]
Does the IEEE get it wrong? Check IEEE 802.1D, the bridging standard. It
uses ports for the physical "interfaces" on a bridge (switch).
Priscilla
At 01:08 PM 8/22/01, Peter Slow wrote:
>an INTERFACE a t
What would you consider interface s0.100 to be? Seems pretty logical to me.
I think you'll find that both the terms interface and port have context
sensitive meanings. If you've ever configured a 3Com netbuilder you'll be
even more convinced of this. I missed the rest of the thread, but I don'
few seconds, sorry
about that"
;-)
-Original Message-
From: Peter Van Oene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 2:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: THEY ARE NOT PORTS THEY ARE INTERFACES! [7:16843]
What would you consider interface s0.100 to be? Seems pretty l
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Peter Slow
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 12:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: THEY ARE NOT PORTS THEY ARE INTERFACES! [7:16843]
YES! Yes they do! So does juniper in all of their manuals. and in their
configs as well.
they ar
TED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 3:03 PM
To: Peter Slow; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: THEY ARE NOT PORTS THEY ARE INTERFACES! [7:16843]
Interface: the place at which independent and often unrelated systems meet
and act on or communicate with each other
Port: a hardware interface by which
TED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:27 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: THEY ARE NOT PORTS THEY ARE INTERFACES! [7:16843]
yeah, but i grew up getting slapped around everytime i referred to it as a
port.
i have "interface" embedded in my language =)
we
:27 PM
To: Peter Slow; Cisco@Groupstudy. Com
Subject: RE: THEY ARE NOT PORTS THEY ARE INTERFACES! [7:16843]
You should get slapped around for not capitalizing the first letter of a
sentence or the word "I", and for not using punctuation properly.
Let he who is without grammatical erro
2001 1:35 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Cisco@Groupstudy. Com
Subject: RE: THEY ARE NOT PORTS THEY ARE INTERFACES! [7:16843]
I am not without grammatical error.
never said i was.
BUT, If i say interface 3, you know im taking about an interface. if i say
port 3, you have no idea what laye
mmatical error.
never said i was.
BUT, If i say interface 3, you know im taking about an interface. if i
say
port 3, you have no idea what layer im at, do you?
-Original Message-
From: Leigh Anne Chisholm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 3:27 PM
To: Peter Slow; Ci
>What would you consider interface s0.100 to be? Seems pretty logical to me.
>
>I think you'll find that both the terms interface and port have context
>sensitive meanings. If you've ever configured a 3Com netbuilder you'll be
>even more convinced of this. I missed the rest of the thread, but I
Hi,
'
Well whilst on about ports.
How about TCP sockets at least at one stage they used to be.
Once upon a time you referred to a funny "D" shaped thing with 25 little
holes in it as an RS232 serial port. Another with 15 pins as an AUI port.
Yes Cisco refer to them as "interfaces" but other
ect: RE: THEY ARE NOT PORTS THEY ARE INTERFACES! [7:16843]
YES! Yes they do! So does juniper in all of their manuals. and in their
configs as well.
they are wrong also!
We must keep these evil minions at bay. All! Join me!
-Original Message-
From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EM
The official terminology is ports are in layer two devices such as switches
and interfaces are in layer three devices such as in routers...
""Peter Slow"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> an INTERFACE a thing, such as an ethernet or loopback interface.
> a port i
There is no "official" terminology. That's the bottom line.
Priscilla
At 11:58 AM 8/23/01, Dennis H wrote:
>The official terminology is ports are in layer two devices such as switches
>and interfaces are in layer three devices such as in routers...
>
>
>
>""Peter Slow"" wrote in message
>[EMAIL
Sorry to say "official." How bout according to Cisco, Bruce Caslow, etc...
the terminology is ports are contained in layer two devices such as switches
and interfaces are in layer three devices such as in routers.
""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTE
: THEY ARE NOT PORTS THEY ARE INTERFACES! [7:16843]
Sorry to say "official." How bout according to Cisco, Bruce Caslow, etc...
the terminology is ports are contained in layer two devices such as switches
and interfaces are in layer three devices such as in routers.
""P
I'm sorry, but I am finding this a bit warped because there are two
quite different things being debated.
1. The syntax expected by the command interpreter on various Cisco
boxes. Indeed, that discussion hasn't even covered the bases. How about
line aux 0
in
22 matches
Mail list logo
