[124775] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: what about 48 bits?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Sun Apr 4 22:17:31 2010
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:46:37 +0930
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: msokolov@ivan.Harhan.ORG (Michael Sokolov)
In-Reply-To: <1004050157.AA21864@ivan.Harhan.ORG>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 01:57:41 GMT
msokolov@ivan.Harhan.ORG (Michael Sokolov) wrote:
> 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.
>
Actually the IEEE have never called it "Ethernet", it's all been IEEE
802.3 / XXX{BASE|BROAD}-BLAH.
"Ethernet", assuming version 1 and 2, strictly means thick coax, vampire
taps and AUI connectors running at (half-duplex) 10Mbps. I saw some of
it once.
Regards,
Mark.
