[124774] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: what about 48 bits?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Sokolov)
Sun Apr 4 21:58:29 2010
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 01:57:41 GMT
From: msokolov@ivan.Harhan.ORG (Michael Sokolov)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
> Has anybody considered lobbying the IEEE to do a point to point version
> of Ethernet to gets rid of addressing fields? [...]
> Actually the minimum 64 byte packet size could probably go too, as that
> was only there for collision detection.
And maybe rename it to something else while you are at it? All those
people who have hijacked the name "Ethernet" for PtP links (all those
"Ethernet" UTP media are really PtP at the physical level, unlike real
coaxial Ethernet) are despicable thieves - now those of us who are still
using the original coaxial Ethernet in the shared bus mode are left
without a clear, unique and distinctive name we once had to refer to
what we use.
MS
