At 10:21 PM 6/26/2003 +0000, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: >Oh. Your message didn't say anything about IPX.
Right. I was talking about layer 2 encapsulations. I thought that the fact that *Cisco IOS* supports this configuration only for IPX is irrelevant. Maybe I was wrong, see below. >Ethernet encapsulation depends on the payload. I am a bit surprised by this statement. Are you saying that the Ethernet specifications mandate the usage of, say, Ethernet II encapsulation if you want to transport IP packets? Frankly, I have never read the Ethernet specifications, but I thought that *in theory*, you can pretty much transport any payload in any Ethernet encapsulation, it's just *usually* not done. Am I mistaken? If so, can you point me to some documents that would enlighten me? (Seriously.) The fact that something is "not configurable" doesn't prove anything outside of the scope of the IOS implementation. As a side question, do you think that TCP must run over IP? :) Thanks, Zsombor > IP uses Ethernet II, CDP uses >SNAP, etc. With the exception of IPX, it's not configurable. (Actually ARP >is configurable too for historical reasons. Long story that I can't get into >now). > >That's not like encapsulation on a serial interface that doesn't care about >the upper layer. > >Think about the IOS software. It has to know what it is encapsulating on >Ethernet. It doesn't on a serial interface. > >That was what I meant by the behavior being different. > >Priscilla > > > > > If you mean that the original question was very Frame Relay and > > Cisco IOS > > implementation specific, and compared to that my answer was too > > generic and > > theoretical, then you are probably right. :) > > > > Thanks, > > > > Zsombor Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71493&t=71421 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
