Re: RING vs. ETHER - Theory and practice.

Mark Horton (mark@cbosgd.ATT.COM)
Mon, 21 Jul 86 01:11:44 edt

In article <12224206784.24.JNC@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU> you write:
> The point of all this is that nets ought to have a reasonable
>hardware acknowledgement feature that would let you know when a host could
>not accept a packet destined to it. I don't know why the didn't put one in
>Ethernet; it would have been really trivial. The CHAOS hardware built at
>the MIT AI Lab (which was a 4MB/sec Ether like system) had such a feature;
>the recipient jammed the cable (causing a collision) if a packet for that
>destination could not be handled.

I note that 802.2 has a whole bunch of "connection oriented" features
added onto the side of Ethernet. While I assume most of us are ignoring
them (I gather they were put there by X.25 types) I wonder if there would
be a clean way to use these facilities to get an ack or nak back for
normal IP type datagrams? Since I gather we have some standards to
work out regarding ARP on 802.2 anyway, maybe this would be a good
time to adopt some other conventions too?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:36:34 GMT