Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:01:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu> To: "Jacob M. Parnas" <jparnas@jparnas.cybercom.net> Cc: hardware@freebsd.org, bsdi-users@bsdi.com Subject: Re: cable vs. ISDN Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9607110958.B4490-0100000@zoo.toronto.edu> In-Reply-To: <199607110404.AAA00651@jparnas.cybercom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >the hardware used for the Rogers prototype talked to the computers by
> >Ethernet.
>
> As pointed out earlier, isn't ethernet tcp/ip based or some other network
> protocol based...
The question is phrased poorly, and is ambiguous, so I'll answer both
interpretations. :-)
Is Ethernet tied to a specific protocol, like TCP/IP? No. Ethernet just
gets a packet from point A to point B, accompanied by a checksum (well,
CRC) and a type indicator. Any other structure is imposed by software.
Do you need to use a non-trivial protocol of some kind to make use of
Ethernet? In principle, no, but in practice, yes. However, this is not
necessarily a bad thing, because talking to network or a complex device
invariably involves a protocol *anyway*... and better you should use a
well-designed one that your software already supports. The alternative is
not to do without a protocol, but to use some kludged-up mess invented by
the hardware vendor, typically undocumented and buggy. (I've written
device drivers.) I'd much rather have the hardware supplier use a standard
protocol that I have debugging tools for.
Henry Spencer
henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.3.89.9607110958.B4490-0100000>