🚀 go-pugleaf

First 2 things to clear up:

- Packet burst works with any frame type

- The only thing that does not work with all frame types is IPX
checksums( this is not packet signature). This does not work with
Ethernet_802.3.

As for what frame type is best, I think everyone has its own favorite.
I think Ethernet_SNAP is the only frame type that nobody recommends
using.
Personally I prefer using Ethernet_802.2 as it is the default frame
type for Netware 3.12 and 4.x and it minimizes the risk of selecting
the wrong frame type.

Marcel


kustner@emjay.com (Tom Kustner) wrote:

>We are currently running 802.3 on a NetWare 3.12 server.  We are
>getting a new server and are thinking of changing frame types.  Would
>you use 802.2 or Ethernet II on the new server?  Assuming that we want
>the current server to have the same frame type, are there negative
>ramifications of changing its frame type (besides changing NET.CFG
>everywhere)?


>I'm confused on another issue.  I have seen a number of people say
>that frame type 802.2 is required for Packet Burst.  Others say that's
>an absolute fable.  We currently use NETX and we need VLM's to use
>packet burst.  But does 802.3 support packet burst?  Does Ethernet II?

>Thanks for any help.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tom Kustner                   Emjay Corporation    
>System/LAN Administrator      725 W. Glendale Ave.
>Email: kustner@emjay.com      Glendale, WI  53209-6509  USA
>Any opinions are mine and not necessarily those of Emjay's.

kustner@emjay.com wrote on 06.08.96
about "Should new server be 802.2 or Ethernet II?":

> We are currently running 802.3 on a NetWare 3.12 server.  We are
> getting a new server and are thinking of changing frame types.  Would
> you use 802.2 or Ethernet II on the new server?  Assuming that we want
> the current server to have the same frame type, are there negative
> ramifications of changing its frame type (besides changing NET.CFG
> everywhere)?
>
>
> I'm confused on another issue.  I have seen a number of people say
> that frame type 802.2 is required for Packet Burst.  Others say that's
> an absolute fable.  We currently use NETX and we need VLM's to use
> packet burst.  But does 802.3 support packet burst?  Does Ethernet II?

Packet burst is always supported, frame signaturing not always (802.3
is the exception).

You should choose Ethernet_II. It's the frame type TCP/IP uses, so there
is no need to use two different types.

... unless you have stupid boot roms or printer servers that require
802.3 or 802.2. Watch out for them!



Frank-Christian Kruegel

----------------------------------------------------------------------
fchk@gigabyte.ohz.north.de                 2:2426/3060.1 21:100/8211.1

In article <4uasq3$s0m@caladan.restena.lu>
   marcel.cox@cie.etat.lu (Marcel Cox) writes:
>First 2 things to clear up:
>
>- Packet burst works with any frame type
>
>- The only thing that does not work with all frame types is IPX
>checksums( this is not packet signature). This does not work with
>Ethernet_802.3.
>
>As for what frame type is best, I think everyone has its own favorite.
>I think Ethernet_SNAP is the only frame type that nobody recommends
>using.
>Personally I prefer using Ethernet_802.2 as it is the default frame
>type for Netware 3.12 and 4.x and it minimizes the risk of selecting
>the wrong frame type.

If you're _ever_ going to run TCP/IP on your network, go for Ethernet_II
frame type.  Shucks, go for it anyway:-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Randal                                philr@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Department
Hereford and Worcester County Council
Worcester, UK

Tom Kustner (kustner@emjay.com) wrote:
: We are currently running 802.3 on a NetWare 3.12 server.  We are
: etc.

Apart from other technical considerations you sometimes have
to use certain frame types to work e.g. with TCP/IP (Ethernet_ii)
or Appletalk (Ethernet_SNAP),
or you might use boot ROMs with a fixed frame type,
or you have a certain policy for routing/bridging etc.

By the way, I have been using more than one frame type
to overcome these sort of problems and obviously
(and sometimes to my surprise) it worked.

Werner Steinmann

I thought the default frame type for 3.x was 802.3 and that it was not
until 4.x that the default became 802.2.

Phil Randal <philr@hwcces.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <4uasq3$s0m@caladan.restena.lu>
>   marcel.cox@cie.etat.lu (Marcel Cox) writes:
>>First 2 things to clear up:
>>
>>- Packet burst works with any frame type
>>
>>- The only thing that does not work with all frame types is IPX
>>checksums( this is not packet signature). This does not work with
>>Ethernet_802.3.
>>
>>As for what frame type is best, I think everyone has its own favorite.
>>I think Ethernet_SNAP is the only frame type that nobody recommends
>>using.
>>Personally I prefer using Ethernet_802.2 as it is the default frame
>>type for Netware 3.12 and 4.x and it minimizes the risk of selecting
>>the wrong frame type.

>If you're _ever_ going to run TCP/IP on your network, go for Ethernet_II
>frame type.  Shucks, go for it anyway:-)

>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Randal                                philr@hwcces.demon.co.uk
>Environmental Services Department
>Hereford and Worcester County Council
>Worcester, UK

I sit corrected...  the default (but not preferred) frame type
beginning with version 3.12 is 802.2.  That's what I get for being
picky.

bdhuskey@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Brian Huskey) wrote:

>I thought the default frame type for 3.x was 802.3 and that it was not
>until 4.x that the default became 802.2.

>Phil Randal <philr@hwcces.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>In article <4uasq3$s0m@caladan.restena.lu>
>>   marcel.cox@cie.etat.lu (Marcel Cox) writes:
>>>First 2 things to clear up:
>>>
>>>- Packet burst works with any frame type
>>>
>>>- The only thing that does not work with all frame types is IPX
>>>checksums( this is not packet signature). This does not work with
>>>Ethernet_802.3.
>>>
>>>As for what frame type is best, I think everyone has its own favorite.
>>>I think Ethernet_SNAP is the only frame type that nobody recommends
>>>using.
>>>Personally I prefer using Ethernet_802.2 as it is the default frame
>>>type for Netware 3.12 and 4.x and it minimizes the risk of selecting
>>>the wrong frame type.

>>If you're _ever_ going to run TCP/IP on your network, go for Ethernet_II
>>frame type.  Shucks, go for it anyway:-)

>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Phil Randal                                philr@hwcces.demon.co.uk
>>Environmental Services Department
>>Hereford and Worcester County Council
>>Worcester, UK

Tom Kustner wrote:
> 
> We are currently running 802.3 on a NetWare 3.12 server.  We are
> getting a new server and are thinking of changing frame types.  Would
> you use 802.2 or Ethernet II on the new server?  Assuming that we want
> the current server to have the same frame type, are there negative
> ramifications of changing its frame type (besides changing NET.CFG
> everywhere)?
> 
> I'm confused on another issue.  I have seen a number of people say
> that frame type 802.2 is required for Packet Burst.  Others say that's
> an absolute fable.  We currently use NETX and we need VLM's to use
> packet burst.  But does 802.3 support packet burst?  Does Ethernet II?
> 
> Thanks for any help.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tom Kustner                   Emjay Corporation
> System/LAN Administrator      725 W. Glendale Ave.
> Email: kustner@emjay.com      Glendale, WI  53209-6509  USA
> Any opinions are mine and not necessarily those of Emjay's.


Don't worry about the change from 802.3 to 802.2

The frames are only different in a small way.  The 802.2 doesn't have a 
"TYPE" paramater that tells different parts of the protocol layers what
type of data to expect in the packet.

Some routers and other high-level (in OSI terms) products like 802.2 as
apposed to 802.3.  If you are 
using fddi / ethernet switches some can't use both fddi_802.2 and
fddi_802.3 at the same time (for example 3Com Lanplex FDDI switch).

Don't dwell on the PBusrst.nlm part of the network.  I have seen too
many times that pburst just increases LAN errors.  Yes you will need to
use VLM's to use the pburst, but you can also disable the pburst from
vlm by using the PB BUFFERS = 0 in the net.cfg.  Try it both ways -with
and without the pubust enabled.  Look at the lan statistics in
Monitor.nlm, and watch for collisions and deffered packets.  You may
find that the pburst will be slower than with out.

Plus you can alway run both frames at the same time in netware.  Just
load the card driver re-entrantly with both frames, and bind ipx to both
cards (one physical card)

Hope it helps

Frank-Christian Kruegel wrote:
> 
> kustner@emjay.com wrote on 06.08.96
> about "Should new server be 802.2 or Ethernet II?":
> 
> > We are currently running 802.3 on a NetWare 3.12 server.  We are
> > getting a new server and are thinking of changing frame types.  Would
> > you use 802.2 or Ethernet II on the new server?  Assuming that we want
> > the current server to have the same frame type, are there negative
> > ramifications of changing its frame type (besides changing NET.CFG
> > everywhere)?
> >
> >
> > I'm confused on another issue.  I have seen a number of people say
> > that frame type 802.2 is required for Packet Burst.  Others say that's
> > an absolute fable.  We currently use NETX and we need VLM's to use
> > packet burst.  But does 802.3 support packet burst?  Does Ethernet II?
> 
> Packet burst is always supported, frame signaturing not always (802.3
> is the exception).
> 
> You should choose Ethernet_II. It's the frame type TCP/IP uses, so there
> is no need to use two different types.
> 
> ... unless you have stupid boot roms or printer servers that require
> 802.3 or 802.2. Watch out for them!
> 
> Frank-Christian Kruegel
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> fchk@gigabyte.ohz.north.de                 2:2426/3060.1 21:100/8211.1

-- 

Frame type ethernet_ii is required for IP binding.  You might also consider that 
if you are (somewhere) running a SNAP - type protocol as in FDDI_SNAP or 
TOKEN_SNAP and if you are wanting to bridge them to ethernet, they are 
translatable to Ethernet_802.2 frames but NOT to ethernet_802.3 frames.

In summary, ethernet_802.3 frames are pretty nearly useless for hetero 
internetworks, and hitching all your PCs to ethernet_802.3 frames is likely
to cause you a lot of work later when you have to change them all!

------ standard disclaimer --------
The above is mentioned purely as an opinion, and is not meant
to be construed as advice, procedure, or fact.   * WmP *

Hi, Brian!

In article <320aa866.1284840@newshost.uwo.ca>, sschiman@mustang.uwo.ca wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Aug 1996 19:43:35 GMT, bdhuskey@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
> (Brian Huskey) wrote:
> 
> Netware 3.11 -> 802.3
> Netware 3.12 -> 802.2
> Netware 4.1  ->  802.2
> 
> 
> 
> >I thought the default frame type for 3.x was 802.3 and that it was not
> >until 4.x that the default became 802.2.
> >

        802.2 became the default with 4.0.  HOWEVER - 3.12 was released
AFTER 4.0 was ...

        RwP

-- 
Ralph Wade Phillips, CET #LA-82
ralphp@gcstation.net

For the long term benefit, consider using Ethernet II.  Save u alot of
work if you need to migrate to tcpip in futher.

fyi.

kustner@emjay.com (Tom Kustner) wrote:

>We are currently running 802.3 on a NetWare 3.12 server.  We are
>getting a new server and are thinking of changing frame types.  Would
>you use 802.2 or Ethernet II on the new server?  Assuming that we want
>the current server to have the same frame type, are there negative
>ramifications of changing its frame type (besides changing NET.CFG
>everywhere)?


>I'm confused on another issue.  I have seen a number of people say
>that frame type 802.2 is required for Packet Burst.  Others say that's
>an absolute fable.  We currently use NETX and we need VLM's to use
>packet burst.  But does 802.3 support packet burst?  Does Ethernet II?

>Thanks for any help.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tom Kustner                   Emjay Corporation    
>System/LAN Administrator      725 W. Glendale Ave.
>Email: kustner@emjay.com      Glendale, WI  53209-6509  USA
>Any opinions are mine and not necessarily those of Emjay's.

bdhuskey@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Brian Huskey) wrote:

>I thought the default frame type for 3.x was 802.3 and that it was not
>until 4.x that the default became 802.2.

>Phil Randal <philr@hwcces.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>In article <4uasq3$s0m@caladan.restena.lu>
>>   marcel.cox@cie.etat.lu (Marcel Cox) writes:
>>>First 2 things to clear up:
>>>
>>>- Packet burst works with any frame type
>>>
>>>- The only thing that does not work with all frame types is IPX
>>>checksums( this is not packet signature). This does not work with
>>>Ethernet_802.3.
>>>
>>>As for what frame type is best, I think everyone has its own favorite.
>>>I think Ethernet_SNAP is the only frame type that nobody recommends
>>>using.
>>>Personally I prefer using Ethernet_802.2 as it is the default frame
>>>type for Netware 3.12 and 4.x and it minimizes the risk of selecting
>>>the wrong frame type.

>>If you're _ever_ going to run TCP/IP on your network, go for Ethernet_II
>>frame type.  Shucks, go for it anyway:-)

>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Phil Randal                                philr@hwcces.demon.co.uk
>>Environmental Services Department
>>Hereford and Worcester County Council
>>Worcester, UK


The default for 3.11 is 802.3.  For 3.12 and higher (4.x) it is 802.2.

If Ethernet_802.3 isn't causing you any problems now, it probably won't.  It's
a leftover from before some standards were finalized, and was known to cause
problems with old, broken versions of BSD Unix.  Aside from that, I haven't
heard of any problems with *any* frame type, aside from the fun you can have
when mixing frame types on the same segment *for a single Ethertype*.

We run mostly IPX/Ethernet_II here, but still have a few old segments that were
set up for IPX/Ethernet_802.3.  They work just fine as long as we remember to
set up new systems properly.  And we run IP (Ethernet_II) and Appletalk
(Ethernet_SNAP) on the same wire.

Different framing for different Ethertypes only causes problems if you bought
lousy routers.
-- 
Mark H. Wood, Lead Systems Programmer    +1 317 274 0749   [@disclaimer@]
Internet:  MWOOD@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU       BITNET:  MWOOD@INDYVAX
Trapped in a world he never made.

Yes, we do run IP here.  Ethernet_II is intriguing.  The question is
whether all our devices will support it (Castelle LANpress cards,
DiscPort, etc.).  HP JetDirect does. Thanks for the good notes.

Regards,

Tom Kustner


On Fri, 9 Aug 1996 03:51:36 GMT, William Pipher
<william@library.utoronto.ca> wrote:

>Frank-Christian Kruegel wrote:
>> 
>> kustner@emjay.com wrote on 06.08.96
>> about "Should new server be 802.2 or Ethernet II?":
>> 
>> > We are currently running 802.3 on a NetWare 3.12 server.  We are
>> > getting a new server and are thinking of changing frame types.  Would
>> > you use 802.2 or Ethernet II on the new server?  Assuming that we want
>> > the current server to have the same frame type, are there negative
>> > ramifications of changing its frame type (besides changing NET.CFG
>> > everywhere)?
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm confused on another issue.  I have seen a number of people say
>> > that frame type 802.2 is required for Packet Burst.  Others say that's
>> > an absolute fable.  We currently use NETX and we need VLM's to use
>> > packet burst.  But does 802.3 support packet burst?  Does Ethernet II?
>> 
>> Packet burst is always supported, frame signaturing not always (802.3
>> is the exception).
>> 
>> You should choose Ethernet_II. It's the frame type TCP/IP uses, so there
>> is no need to use two different types.
>> 
>> ... unless you have stupid boot roms or printer servers that require
>> 802.3 or 802.2. Watch out for them!
>> 
>> Frank-Christian Kruegel
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> fchk@gigabyte.ohz.north.de                 2:2426/3060.1 21:100/8211.1
>
>-- 
>
>Frame type ethernet_ii is required for IP binding.  You might also consider that 
>if you are (somewhere) running a SNAP - type protocol as in FDDI_SNAP or 
>TOKEN_SNAP and if you are wanting to bridge them to ethernet, they are 
>translatable to Ethernet_802.2 frames but NOT to ethernet_802.3 frames.
>
>In summary, ethernet_802.3 frames are pretty nearly useless for hetero 
>internetworks, and hitching all your PCs to ethernet_802.3 frames is likely
>to cause you a lot of work later when you have to change them all!
>
>------ standard disclaimer --------
>The above is mentioned purely as an opinion, and is not meant
>to be construed as advice, procedure, or fact.   * WmP *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Kustner                   Emjay Corporation    
System/LAN Administrator      725 W. Glendale Ave.
Email: kustner@emjay.com      Glendale, WI  53209-6509  USA
Any opinions are mine and not necessarily those of Emjay's.

On Thu, 08 Aug 1996 23:17:27 -0500, Matt Haynes <mhaynes@midusa.net>
wrote:

>Plus you can alway run both frames at the same time in netware.  Just
>load the card driver re-entrantly with both frames, and bind ipx to both
>cards (one physical card)
>

It is a relevant fact.  However, the NetWare FAQ stated you will
increase the number of SAPs on the network.  I cannot tell you if the
load increase is measurable or negligible.

Otherwise, thanks for the other notes you made regarding PBURST.

Regards,

Tom Kustner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Kustner                   Emjay Corporation    
System/LAN Administrator      725 W. Glendale Ave.
Email: kustner@emjay.com      Glendale, WI  53209-6509  USA
Any opinions are mine and not necessarily those of Emjay's.

On Mon, 12 Aug 1996, Tom Kustner wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Aug 1996 23:17:27 -0500, Matt Haynes <mhaynes@midusa.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >Plus you can alway run both frames at the same time in netware.  Just
> >load the card driver re-entrantly with both frames, and bind ipx to both
> >cards (one physical card)
> >
> 
> It is a relevant fact.  However, the NetWare FAQ stated you will
> increase the number of SAPs on the network.  I cannot tell you if the
> load increase is measurable or negligible.
> 
We have both frames activated on our 4.1 network ( as do most
installations here on campus ) and there does not seem to be any
appreciable degradation of either services or resources. Of course your
mileage may vary!

Marc Callier			
University of Colorado
Property and Distribution Services

Check out our public auctions
http://stripe.colorado.edu/~propman/Home.html

Phil Randal <philr@hwcces.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <4uasq3$s0m@caladan.restena.lu>
>   marcel.cox@cie.etat.lu (Marcel Cox) writes:
>>First 2 things to clear up:
>>
>>- Packet burst works with any frame type
>>
>>- The only thing that does not work with all frame types is IPX
>>checksums( this is not packet signature). This does not work with
>>Ethernet_802.3.
>>
>>As for what frame type is best, I think everyone has its own favorite.
>>I think Ethernet_SNAP is the only frame type that nobody recommends
>>using.
>>Personally I prefer using Ethernet_802.2 as it is the default frame
>>type for Netware 3.12 and 4.x and it minimizes the risk of selecting
>>the wrong frame type.

>If you're _ever_ going to run TCP/IP on your network, go for Ethernet_II
>frame type.  Shucks, go for it anyway:-)

>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Randal                                philr@hwcces.demon.co.uk
>Environmental Services Department
>Hereford and Worcester County Council
>Worcester, UK


Either that or Ethernet_SNAP.  No other choice ..

In article <32075b60.4395812@news.execpc.com> kustner@emjay.com (Tom Kustner) writes:
$We are currently running 802.3 on a NetWare 3.12 server.  We are
$getting a new server and are thinking of changing frame types.  Would
$you use 802.2 or Ethernet II on the new server?  Assuming that we want
$the current server to have the same frame type, are there negative
$ramifications of changing its frame type (besides changing NET.CFG
$everywhere)?

   Naw, that's about it; you need to reconfigure almost every device
on the network.  That includes print servers, for example.

   My personal favourite Ethernet frame type is Ethernet_II.  Why?
Because it's rare for me to use anything other than IPX and IP,
and Ethernet_II is the standard frame type for IP.  So I use it for
both.

   Technically, as noted in TFFAQ, there's no significant benefit or
detriment to using either.

   If you have some other work to do that will take you to every
workstation, then change.  If not, why bother going around to every
machine and updating them just for the sake of changing a frame type?
I don't like Ethernet_802.3, but I don't dislike it enough to come
up with a make-work project just for the sake of eliminating that
one frame type.  Over time, as I have to work on people's workstations,
I'll change 'em; in the meantime, the handful of workstations on my
LAN which are still running Ethernet_802.3 aren't causing any problems,
so I leave them alone.

$I'm confused on another issue.  I have seen a number of people say
$that frame type 802.2 is required for Packet Burst.  Others say that's
$an absolute fable.  We currently use NETX and we need VLM's to use
$packet burst.  But does 802.3 support packet burst?  Does Ethernet II?

   Not quite ... you're thinking of IPX checksums, which can be done
over every Ethernet frame type except for 802.3.  Packet burst,
large internet packet support, and packet signatures are all available
on all four Ethernet frame types.
-- 
Stephen M. Dunn (SD313), CNE, ACE                  steved@bokonon.ussinc.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manager, Technical Services                     United System Solutions Inc.
104 Carnforth Road, Toronto, ON, Canada M4A 2K7          (416) 750-7946 x251

Jim Dawson wrote:
> 
> bainster@interramp.com wrote:
> 
> >Phil Randal <philr@hwcces.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <4uasq3$s0m@caladan.restena.lu>
> >>   marcel.cox@cie.etat.lu (Marcel Cox) writes:
> >>>First 2 things to clear up:
> >>>
> >>>- Packet burst works with any frame type
> >>>
> >>>- The only thing that does not work with all frame types is IPX
> >>>checksums( this is not packet signature). This does not work with
> >>>Ethernet_802.3.
> >>>
> >>>As for what frame type is best, I think everyone has its own favorite.
> >>>I think Ethernet_SNAP is the only frame type that nobody recommends
> >>>using.
> >>>Personally I prefer using Ethernet_802.2 as it is the default frame
> >>>type for Netware 3.12 and 4.x and it minimizes the risk of selecting
> >>>the wrong frame type.
> >
> >>If you're _ever_ going to run TCP/IP on your network, go for Ethernet_II
> >>frame type.  Shucks, go for it anyway:-)
> >
> >Either that or Ethernet_SNAP.  No other choice ..
> 
> Could someone post a list of pros and cons of using each of the four
> frame types supported by NetWare? (802.3, 802.2, Ethernet II, Ethernet
> SNAP)
> 
> Also, I was told that NetWare 4.x does not work properly with 802.3. Is
> there any truth to this?
> ---
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | <*>                Jim Dawson - jdawson@inlink.com               <*> |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+



Let's see. In the beginning there was the Digital-Intel-Xerox (DIX)
standard,called 'Ethernet', then there came version two of the same
(which I believe only differed in the physical spec's). The DIX Ethernet
frame-type contained a TYPE field which contained a number that
described the what kind of OSI3-data it was carrying (i.e. XNS, IP,
..)..

Then came IEEE which combined elements of LAPB (Data-link connections,
and other stuff) with Ethernet and ripped out the TYPE field and made it
a LENGTH field instead. A new part of the fram called LLC (Logical Link
Control) now had TYPing capability (for both sending and receiving
protocols, which truly IS wierd.. I mean when, if ever, do you want to
send from IP to IPX???). This standard was christened 802.3.

For reasons that are rather unclear to me, Novell made a proprietary
version of "802.3" that they also named "802.3", but which was missing
the LLC-field, so that it was unable to tell what kind of data it
carried. Of course, if the only type of data you'll carry is IPX, then
that's OK, I guess. The whys and wherefores of this as acording to
rumors that Novell made their version before IEEE was ready with theird.
I dunno.

Anyway the (IEEE) 802.3 was a standard - presto - but programmers still
wanted to be able to use the same type values as in the DIX Ehternet
standard (or so I have been told ... OK, I have read it somwhere.
Whatnot..  :-) So the Ethernet_SNAP unstandard ethernet-frame was
created. It's actually a version of (IEEE) 802.3, but with a
"SNAP"-field after the LLC. What does the SNAP-filed do?  It types the
data. But didn't LLC do that??? Yes! But with different kind of numbers
than the DIX standard.

So SNAP wastes (i believe) 4 bytes on saying "SNAP coming up" in the LLC
field, and then the SNAP field comes along with types the data after the
same fasion tha the DIX ethernet frame's type field did. URG.

So what we have here is the following; Ethernet, which Novell calls
Ethernet_ii,
802.3, which Novell calls Etehrnet_802.2 (because the LLC field is also
named 802.2 (1980 february, subgroup 2 - think)), and we have the very
very nonstandard inflexible tpe of ethernet which sometimes is referred
to as "802.3 (RAW)", but which Novell merrily calls Ethernet_802.3, even
though it absolutely isn't and lacks a vital component which the
standard going by the same name has, and we have the Ethernet SNAP
nonstandard, which Novell calls Ethernet_SNAP.

You didn't really want to know thi, though, did you??

Peter Svensson
MCNE, CNI, Programmer, and so on..
Data Construction Education AB
Sweden
psvensso@eiknes.se

bainster@interramp.com wrote:

>Phil Randal <philr@hwcces.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <4uasq3$s0m@caladan.restena.lu>
>>   marcel.cox@cie.etat.lu (Marcel Cox) writes:
>>>First 2 things to clear up:
>>>
>>>- Packet burst works with any frame type
>>>
>>>- The only thing that does not work with all frame types is IPX
>>>checksums( this is not packet signature). This does not work with
>>>Ethernet_802.3.
>>>
>>>As for what frame type is best, I think everyone has its own favorite.
>>>I think Ethernet_SNAP is the only frame type that nobody recommends
>>>using.
>>>Personally I prefer using Ethernet_802.2 as it is the default frame
>>>type for Netware 3.12 and 4.x and it minimizes the risk of selecting
>>>the wrong frame type.
>
>>If you're _ever_ going to run TCP/IP on your network, go for Ethernet_II
>>frame type.  Shucks, go for it anyway:-)
>
>Either that or Ethernet_SNAP.  No other choice ..

Could someone post a list of pros and cons of using each of the four
frame types supported by NetWare? (802.3, 802.2, Ethernet II, Ethernet
SNAP)

Also, I was told that NetWare 4.x does not work properly with 802.3. Is
there any truth to this?
---
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| <*>                Jim Dawson - jdawson@inlink.com               <*> |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Thu, 15 Aug 1996 03:40:59 GMT, jdawson@inlink.com (Jim Dawson)
wrote:

>Could someone post a list of pros and cons of using each of the four
>frame types supported by NetWare? (802.3, 802.2, Ethernet II, Ethernet
>SNAP)
>
>Also, I was told that NetWare 4.x does not work properly with 802.3. Is
>there any truth to this?
>---

See the NetWare FAQ.  From the FAQ:

A.2 How can I get the FAQ?

This FAQ file is mailed every other Monday and is available by FTP at:

Utah State (US)

	ftp://netlab2.usu.edu/misc/faq.txt
	       *129.123.1.44*
For Netscapers:
	ftp://netlab2.usu.edu/sys/anonftp/misc/faq.txt

Kansas (US)

	ftp://kawnug.oznet.ksu.edu/www/novell/faq/

Via Gopher at:


gopher://rphs33.physik.uni-regensburg.de/00/News/FAQs/Novell-NetWare-FAQ

	[Thanks G.B.]

And via the World Wide Web in HTML (and zipped ASCII) format at:

Utah State (US)

	http://netlab1.usu.edu/novell.faq/nov-faq.htm


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Kustner                   Emjay Corporation    
System/LAN Administrator      725 W. Glendale Ave.
Email: kustner@emjay.com      Glendale, WI  53209-6509  USA
Any opinions are mine and not necessarily those of Emjay's.