Re: FDDI-Ether bridges

Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu> Mon, 11 December 1989 09:34 UTC

Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA26546; Mon, 11 Dec 89 01:34:21 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA21521; Mon, 11 Dec 89 01:34:15 -0800
Received: by Pescadero.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04791; Mon, 11 Dec 89 01:33:54 PDT
Date: 11 Dec 1989 1:20-PST
From: Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: FDDI-Ether bridges
To: mtudwg
Message-Id: <89/12/11 0120.002@pescadero.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: Craig Partridge's message of Thu, 30 Nov 89 073107 -0500

Craig wrote:

>	We may also use MTU discovery to help solve FDDI-Ethernet bridging
>	problems (mismatched MTUs) -- note this requires the use of an option.

Well, last week I had the dubious pleasure of attending the FDDI Plenary
meeting in San Diego, and there I learned that the current thinking on
FDDI-Ether bridges is that, to handle the changes of MTU, the bridges
are going to ... wait for it ... perform IP fragmentation!

In other words, they are going to build IP routers and call them
"bridges" for marketing reasons.

In that case, my report-fragmentation approach will do the right thing.
If you want the MTU option approach to work with such "bridges", you'd
better make sure they include IP option handling, as well as
fragmentation.

>	(But I don't hold with folks who say let FDDI-Ethernet bridge
>	builders stew).

No.  They should be exterminated immediately!

Steve