Re: OUI != 00-00-00
Vernon Schryver <vjs%rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com@sgi.com> Wed, 12 September 1990 03:21 UTC
Received: from merit.edu by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15310; 11 Sep 90 23:21 EDT
Received: Tue, 11 Sep 90 22:21:21 EST from SGI.COM by merit.edu (5.59/1.6)
Received: from whizzer.wpd.sgi.com by SGI.COM via SMTP (5.64-bind 1.5+ida/900410.SGI) for fddi@merit.edu id AA06594; Tue, 11 Sep 90 20:21:18 -0700
Received: from rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com by whizzer.wpd.sgi.com via SMTP (5.64-bind 1.5+ida/900721.SGI) for sgi.sgi.com!merit.edu!fddi id AA16457; Tue, 11 Sep 90 20:21:16 -0700
Received: by rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (5.52/900721.SGI) for @whizzer.wpd.sgi.com:fddi@merit.edu id AA01174; Tue, 11 Sep 90 20:21:15 PDT
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 1990 20:21:15 -0700
From: Vernon Schryver <vjs%rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com@sgi.com>
Message-Id: <9009120321.AA01174@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com>
To: fddi@merit.edu
Subject: Re: OUI != 00-00-00
Status: O
> From: bellcore.bellcore.com!nvuxe!larryl (Lawrence J Lang) > Date: 11 Sep 1990 18:09 EDT > ... > Then, an FDDI/Ethernet bridge would translate such an FDDI frame into > an 802.3 frame, rather than a traditional Ethernet frame, on the 'orange hose'. > No problem for 1042-capable systems, but it would lock out 894-only systems. > This may not matter if EARP is only of interest to systems on the FDDI ring, > but this effect seems to militate against specifying such a SNAP. > > The SNAP should probably use the OUI 00-00-00, > and an EtherType assigned for EARP. > > Larry Lang > > Bellcore > larryl@sabre.bellcore.com I don't understand the reasons, tho I like the conclusion. What systems would be "locked out" and of what? All that I can see is some machines on ethernet yellow hose would not be able to participate in the new fangled Modified Extended ARP that might be happening on FDDI rings bridged to the ether. How many ethernet hosts care about EARP? Even if an ethernet host cares, what can it do with, about, or for EARP? Is someone proposing bridging some ethernets to some one ring while others are bridged to the other? I don't understand how the 1042/1103/11?? translating rules help decide choosing between a new non-00-00-00 OUI and a new EtherType. For irrational, aesthetic reasons I prefer a new EtherType with a 00-00-00 OUI. I also think it would be slightly simpler to hack into BSD style code like mine. I've heard from a tentative, possible, if-no-one-else-does, if-Postel-says-EARP-will-be-an-RFC-soon, volunteer with some spare EtherTypes vjs
- OUI != 00-00-00 Lawrence J Lang
- Re: OUI != 00-00-00 Vernon Schryver