[demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] Hence the common maritime vernacular term "any port in a storm" (not to be confused with the roughly parallel networking vernacular term "any port in a [broadcast] storm") It sure would sound silly to seek out "any interface in a storm." (Though probably not as silly as this thread which may have greatly exceeded its TTL) ------------------------------------------------------------------ And if I use a word that sounds like "too", how do you know if I'm saying to, two, or two? Context!! If you say port, I might think you're either referring to a place where boats tie up to docks or you might be discussing wine. Or you could be "porting" software from one platform to another. Then again, if I'm chatting with my neighbor in the next cubicle over, are we interfacing or porting? Interfacing, I hope. If we're porting my wife will kill me! What about GUIs? They're not physical, they're logical. The point is that context is everything and if you refer to the physical connector as either an interface or a port, we'll all understand what you're referring to. Ok, enough of that thread (or is it string??) ;-) John >>> "Peter Slow" 8/22/01 1:47:40 PM >>> 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 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; 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 error cast the first misplaced modifier. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Slow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 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 can stop this thread though, i suppose, instead of starting a holy war =) -----Original Message----- From: Leigh Anne Chisholm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 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 a computer communicates with another device or system So who really decided which was more correct--interface or port? Who set that standard? When you talk about BRI on a router, is it a "Basic Rate Interface Interface" or is it a "Basic Rate Interface Port" that you connect to? Food for thought. 1. Gigabit Ethernet Port Adapter (PA-GE) (7100 and 7200VXR only) The single port Gigabit Ethernet Port Adapter (PA-GE) provides a Gigabit Ethernet connection for the Cisco 7200 series router. 2. Verify the IP Address of the Router Ethernet Port To verify the IP address, enter the show interface e0 command on the command line. For example: Router>show interface e0 Ethernet0 is up, line protocol is down Hardware is PQUICC Ethernet, address is 0003.6bdc.0435 (bia 0003.6bdc.0435) Internet address is 10.10.10.1/24 .... 3. http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/pcat/1000.pdf Don't we have other things more important in our lives than correcting each other's English based on our limited version of what we perceive is correct? And if you must finish this argument, I would ask that you provide the source of the original definition that "interface" has been defined to be the only correct term to refer to a hardware-based network connection point? Who has actually defined that "interface" is the only correct term? -----Original Message----- 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 are wrong also! We must keep these evil minions at bay. All! Join me! -----Original Message----- From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 2:02 PM To: [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 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 ports, usp ports, and the like. > >Stop being d0rks and copying everyone else who does it >wrong, and dont be afraid to tell people to speak correctly! > >c3660#conf t >Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z. >c3660(config)#port fastethernet 0/0 > ^ >% Invalid input detected at '^' marker. > >c3660(config)#interface fastethernet 0/0 >c3660(config-if)#^Z >c3660#SEE!? >% Unrecognized command >c3660#SEE! >-humboldt ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com This email was sent through the free email service at http://www.anonymous.to/ To report abuse, please visit our website and click "Contact Us." Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16892&t=16843 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
