Hi,
I understood it to tell me that there is a common method used by a number of
manufacturers and protocols. Some other companies and protocols had made some
changes. The default was used as it was the most common. Ethernet_II had been around
for quite a while before the 802.3 and almost all devices manufacturers ethernet cards
and the like could handle Ethernet_II but not necessarily 802.3.
Maybe I mis understood.
Teunis
On Tuesday, February 06, 2001 at 05:36:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I did read Priscilla's post. She addressed the issue of WHY Ethernet_II is
> the default frame type selected for IP, but didn't examine why IP requires a
> default frame type in the first place. 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
> 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 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 to
> a
> different frame type, or would we only benefit from a different frame type
> in a non-IP environment 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: Another 802.3 and Ethernet Question
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm sorry I did not cover the rest of the ethernat frame types. This was
> covered earlier this week. Priscilla covered it really well in one of her
> replys on a similar question.
>
> Teunis
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 06, 2001 at 04:55:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Yes, with respect to IPX, that's correct--and that answers my first
> > question.
> >
> > My second question asked about what was the purpose of a default Ethernet
> > frame type for use with IP. Using IPX as an analogy, does a router only
> > route Ethernet_II frames if no Ethernet frame type has been specified?
> Does
> > a router drop IEEE 802.3 frames by default? To route IEEE 802.3 frames,
> is
> > any additional configuration required?
> >
> > And with that, we're lead back to John's original question: What is the
> > purpose of a default Ethernet frame type for IP?
> >
> > -----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
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Those not specified by the router are either routed by the server or
> produce
> > IPX protol errors and are dropped.
> >
> > It is important not to have the various frame types set on the servers or
> > service advertisers. If for example you are normally using Novell-Ether
> > (802.3) and you put in a server using Netware 4.x running SAP (802.2).
> Now
> > when you put in the first server you configure both the SAP and Novell
> Ether
> > in the server. You have 802.3 (Novell-ether) configured in the router.
> > Pull out the original server and you have no network. Othen you will lose
> > half of your local clients.
> >
> > Have lose networks and or frame types can also create some horrible little
> > routing loops and unwanted traffic. SAP's, RIP updates etc.
> >
> > Let the router route and servers serve.
> >
> > Another one that sometimes grabs you.
> >
> > Teunis,
> > Hobart, Tasmania
> > Australia
>
>
>
--
www.tasmail.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
