[MLB-WIRELESS] So how does this routing bit work?

[vortex]

look. ethernet frames do not route. neither do 802.11b frames.

switching doesn't make sense in 802.11b.

layer 2 'routing' (bridging?) does not scale and is link layer dependent. why 
make life proprietary and difficult by trying to wedge this? oh, btw it makes 
any solution very not ubiquitous at all.

802.11b bss mode attempts to help collisions in a broadcast medium, but AP 
handoff protocols are still vendor specific.

IP is ubiquitous and it routes.

I don't think I can state this more clearly.

.vortex

On Friday 29 March 2002 12:52 pm, Ben Anderson wrote:
> I know what layer 2 switching is...  I was desribing a modification to this
> theory, when vortex responded with "scalable role of this IP thingie"
> Which "IP thingie" is he on about?
> Why shouldn't I think of "layer 2 'routing'"?
> And if he's not sure on my position, why is he suggesting I ignore layer 2
> 'routing' possibilities?
>
> Ben.
>
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 11:25:59AM +0000, vortex wrote:
> > > not sure what your position is on this, but don't even think of layer 2
> > > 'routing'. that's definitely the scalable role of this IP thingie.
> >
> > It's generally called 'switching' at layer 2, but the effect is the same.
> > An switch uses layer 2 addresses (an Ethernet switch looks at the MAC
> > addresses), while a router uses layer 3 address (IP addresses, IPX
> > addresses, etc).
> >
> >
> > Hamish
> > --
> > Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish at debian.org> <hamish at cloud.net.au>