Hmmm .... Being bogged down in semantics AND admittedly having to go to
Google to bolster your arguments? ... no damn wonder you're struggling with
For your future benefit, any dictionary will give you the definition of
1 : containing or made up of fundamentally different and often incongruous
Not exactly, you came from left field with something totally irrelevant
about "PPP. Sounds like you got that from Google also.
You said you did a Google search on 'disparate'. Not on the combination of
that word, this group, that author.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Can't even do that right, eh?
Enjoy your sandwich!
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:58:33 -0700, Swingman wrote
Well that's funky....
I tried Mozilla and google gave me the "omitted references" link. My regular
browser only showed the single reference.
My bad, thanks for the link.
Still, I think you have confused internet standards with network standards.
Internet protocols are what allow different networks (LANs) to link. Network
standards are inter-LAN of which AppleTalk was one of the most common until
supplanted by IP. Major bridge/router manufactures still support the various
flavors of AppleTalk (i.e. AT over ethernet, ftp, ppp, etc.)
Not at all ... there are two basic points which of which you appear to be
- In the industry, "network protocols" are also known and defined as
- The largest WAN (wide area network) in the world _is_ the Internet.
Therefore, your statement that:
.... is provably erroneous by industry definition, and, has been often
stated here, nearsighted in its failure to recognize the implications of WAN
"protocols" as being indeed, "networking standards".
In short, it is you have been _proven_ to be "confused".
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:22:54 -0700, Swingman wrote
I agree. The key word here is network. A homogeneous unit in the common
interpretation (i.e. LAN) but extendable. The internet would be the extreme
extension of this interpretation if it was homogeneous.
Ok, I'll buy that.
My point with the quotes was that there is no _single_ standard. There are a
bunch of choices, some common (i.e. IP, AppleTalk, etc.) and some esoteric
(custom, one off implementations). You are not forced into a single format.
Internet (WAN) standards unite the various flavors of proprietary and open
sourced protocols. They are not necessarily derived to define lower protocols
as much as they are derived to allow these protocols to interoperate.
My beef is you go off falsely sounding like a networking expert with
When you can't seem to explain why network equipment manufactures, OS
vendors, etc. support and allocate resource limited address space and
protocol identifiers for AppleTalk, a standard dating back to the 80's.
No shit? ... did you think we were talking about reality TV?
But that is not what you said. And there is - the collection of protocols
for the global WAN called the Internet - you're being nearsighted if you
You sound like you finally took the definition of "disparate" to heart and
learned something. ;)
Sure thing, and in my ignorance manifested itself in calling you immediately
on your attempted, and irrelevant, introduction of "PPP" into the thread?
In your wildest 'thunking', could you understand it if I did?
As myopic as you been with this fixation on AppleTalk, particularly now that
with the introduction of "allocated" address space, a ridiculously broad
brushed theme to bolster your argument, I am not sure that you could.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:29:14 -0700, Swingman wrote
Reality seems to be a new concept to you?
No. Internet standards are not directly equal to network standards. There
are network standards that are not internet standards and vice versa. There
is also overlap. Think of the union of two sets in a Venn diagram.
There exists a number of accepted encapsulations (standards) for transport of
various standard protocols (yes, PPP is one).
Duh! PPP is a network standard. Check your network connection options
I think you can't back up your claim. You are avoiding it.
I suppose I have to explain port addressing and protocol definition headers
to you? Pick up a transport layer definition specification sometime. You'll
see lots of big words like "IP address" etc.
But you have already stated unequivocally that there are none ... make up
I gave you an unimpeachable source definining "network standards". Thus far
you have provided no proof, except your muddled blatherings and flip flops,
to back up your claim.
But, you have previously claimed that there is "no networking standard" ...
which is it, Bruce?
Besides, in the context in which you used PPP, your use was clearly
irrelevant and what it really showed was a lack of depth of knowledge on the
LOL ... my "claim" all along is that you are myopic in your understanding of
the concept of "network standards ... a fact which you have sufficiently
demonstrated by yourself.
I am still waiting for you to explain the basis for your claim that there is
no "networking standard" ... so until you accomplish that, don't bother to
presume you can explain anything.
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:45:11 -0700, Swingman wrote
If you would put on your glasses (you seem to bring up your myopia a lot) I
said there is no single network standard (singular). There are a bunch of
network standards to choose from.
Gee if you are still on the IETF thing, they weren't cohesive when AppleTalk
was created. I suppose you also claim that CSNET, BITNET, ARPANET, etc. are
not in anyway no-how network standards since they formed before IETF. Was it
Al Gore who created IETF by any chance????
Is PPP not a standard? Seems quite popular eh???
You really don't understand what a standard is do you?
You really just can't accept that AppleTalk is a standard can you?
<snip of Kerryesqe flip flops on the existence of "network standards">
LOL! If you recall, it was I who had to provide a definition for YOU.
But, Bruce ...YOU clearly stated there are none.
But it is nice to see that your flip flops are an indication of sorts that
you are finally getting the point ... and once it was pointed out to you,
you even managed to grasp the concept of "disparate" and actually use the
concept in your argument, so you have obviously learned something thus far.
However, by industry definition, and has been often stated here, you have
been nearsighted in your failure to recognize the implications of global WAN
"protocols" as being indeed, "networking standards".
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 07:14:09 -0700, Swingman wrote
No. again if you could focus on more than one line at a time, I stated there
is no "network standard", just a bunch of choices (all of which are network
standards, including Appletalk) Are you advocating that only IP is permitted
You still can't back up your claim that AppleTalk isn't a network standard
And exactly what was it that you couldn't understand about the following?
Once again, it was _you_ who said there are no "network standards".
What I said was that "WITH REGARD TO APPLE AND NETWORKING", AppleTalk is not
an "industry" standard ... it is not. It is a _proprietary_ group of
protocols. Protocols, AAMOF, whose use are being discontinued throughout the
networking industry, including most college and university networks. As just
one example see:
LOL ... well, you have proved conclusively that you can, at last, Google
effectively, and can cut n' paste. However, that ability does little to
further your understanding of the issues.
When you take the time to read and comprehend what you posted, you will note
that it deals primarily with making AppleTalk, a proprietary, non TCP/IP,
non-compatible network, _compatible_ with the "networking standards" of the
largest WAN in existence.
Nice try, though ... ;>)
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:32:24 -0700, Swingman wrote
Read what I said. I never said "network standards".
Gee, but you said protocols are indeed network standards...
It's not proprietary either. Third party hardware is common and it follows
the IEEE guidelines. It networked millions of computers in institutions
worldwide, interfaced well with other networks.. Gee just like a standard....
you still haven't proven Appletalk is not an industry standard. Even the IETF
This is old news. however network equipment manufactures still support these
standard protocols and port address space and protocol header identifiers
still are reserved and defined.
It's just protocol encapsulation. As I pointed out, equipment manufactures
take care of this. What is the deal with TCP/IP? It would be silly to force
everyone to use TCP/IP.
Take your pick from about 40,000 documents that prove you wrong, again.
Sure it "considers" AppleTalk, but only in the sense to make it compatible.
Only an argumentative fool would call it an "industy standard" ... not one
single of your "equipment manufacturers" does ... they all specifically call
it what it is, "proprietary".
Hmmm ... sounds like you've been reading my posts in this thread. Keep doing
that and you may actually learn something yet.
Yep, and this is what one of the biggest "equipment manufacturer", Cisco,
"These data link layer implementations perform address translation and other
functions that allow proprietary AppleTalk protocols to communicate over
industry-standard interfaces, ..."
Note the repeated use of the word "proprietary" in the Cisco document.
Keep trying, Bruce ... your bullshit just ain't working.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.