nanog mailing list archives
Re: what about 48 bits?
From: msokolov () ivan Harhan ORG (Michael Sokolov)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 01:57:41 GMT
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
Current thread:
- Re: what about 48 bits?, (continued)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Larry Sheldon (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Kevin Oberman (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? James Hess (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Jon Lewis (Apr 05)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 05)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Patrick W. Gilmore (Apr 05)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 05)
- Re: what about 48 bits? joel jaeggli (Apr 05)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Jon Lewis (Apr 06)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 05)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Larry Sheldon (Apr 05)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Mark Smith (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Jim Burwell (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Jorge Amodio (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Steven Bellovin (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Jorge Amodio (Apr 04)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Joe Greco (Apr 07)
- Re: what about 48 bits? Stefan Bethke (Apr 07)