🚀 go-pugleaf

vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:

>In article <mbt.717984230@Able.MKT.3Com.Com>, mbt@ESD.3Com.COM (Brad Turner) writes:
>> ...
>> If after telling somebody they might shoot themselves in the foot I
>> firmly believe they still have the right to. The whole issue boils
>> down to customer choice and education.


>What went wrong with the customer who started this thread?

I'm following up via email and don't know yet. I was out of the office
Friday.


>> IP aside how does SGI deal with ether to FDDI translation bridging
>> of protocols that don't use byte level acks? Just courious...

>I don't know what is meant by "byte level acks".  Protocols such as TP4
>or XNS with records?  What problems special do they have?

A bridge can't fragment a 4K XNS/IPX datagram the way it can a IP
datagram. The only reason you can frag an IP packet is because the
seq numbers are at the byte level. With XNS et. al. since the seq
numbers correlate to packet number a bridge can't really fragment
packet number 2 into packet number 2 and packet 2.5. The end node
is going to send out packet seq number 3 after 2. So how can the
bridge fragment?


>We tend to encapsulate protocols like SNA in TCP/IP.

>Silicon Graphics makes UNIX boxes.  None of our standard products
>bridge.  We are perforce of the routing faith.

> [SGI site info re: routing only deleted]

Actually what I was getting at was that it is merely a happy coincidence
that IP can be hacked by a bridge to work. Other real world protocols
still pose problems. More than likely since you are in such an IP-centric
shop you don't see these other protocol problems.


>Vernon Schryver,  vjs@sgi.com
--
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
Brad Turner | 5400 Bayfront Plaza  | Marketing Engineer   | (408) 764-5261
3Com Corp.  | Santa Clara CA, 95052| mbt@NSD.3Com.Com     | (408) 764-5002 fax