Subject: (IPng 7141) Re: Link layers we dont have yet...

From: Don Coolidge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:21:06 -0800 (PST)

>At 9:20 AM -0800 1/29/99, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> I think we usually call this "localtalk".  Bob is correct, Appletalk is a
>> complete protocol suite (e.g., appletalk over ethernet, appletalk over
>> localtalk, etc.).  There is a IPv4 over Localtalk specification.
>
>It is my understanding that the common practice is IP-over-AppleTalk,
>*not* IP-over-LocalTalk.  I.e., IP is "tunneled" through the AppleTalk
>internet protocol to reach LocalTalk-attached devices.
>
>Steve

Steve's right about this; the AppleTalk then runs over whatever link
layer protocol it happens to be above. And Ethernet's among them, so
the lack of a native LocalTalk connection on an iMac doesn't say
anything meaningful about IPV6 over AppleTalk.

(I wonder how/if/what my former colleagues are doing about that?)

-- Don Coolidge

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:56:00 -0800

> anything meaningful about IPV6 over AppleTalk.

Right, but you don't need to use AppleTalk encapsulation to get IP
packets in and out of Ethernet-attached Macs (so-called "EtherTalk");
you can use standard IP-over-Ethernet for that.  It is only when you
want to reach LocalTalk-attached devices that you have to resort to
AppleTalk encapsulation.

Steve