Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
In trying to include non-802 standards based networks in the definition, we have managed to exclude networks based upon widely used 802 standards (those that do not really support or use bridging). That seems rather strange and inappropriate to me.
A device capable of bridging between devices not based on 802 standards into a network that is based on 802 standards would by the definition below be part of an 802 network, so I don't see the problem. The other side of the bridge is not an 802 network. Why
is this not reasonable?
Just wondering.
Ben
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> on behalf of ROBERT GROW <bobgrow@COX.NET>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 11:17 AM To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Definitions for IEEE 802 Network and IEEE 802 Family of standards Geoff,
I favor some kind of change like James noted. Historically, there have been a number of standards developed to be compatible with Std 802 and use 802.1 bridging. Power Line networks were one. FDDI used 802 addresses and other than the challenge of frame
length, were very compatible with bridging to LMSC specified networks.
I also think it is important to distinguish between standards developed within LMSC and elsewhere.
I think it is prudent to keep the door open for compatible innovation to happen outside of LMSC, and to preserve the ability for Std 802 to recognize that possibility.
—Bob
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1 |