First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.

Christopher Aldridge christopher.aldridge at iscan.net
Sun Feb 29 10:31:22 UTC 2004


NOTE: I have been a nanog observer for nearly a year. The following may
be slightly off topic, but it seems as though nanog is my last hope.

 

Recently at work, I've been battling fellow coworkers on a very simple
debate. The fact that I will not "give in" on my argument really makes
me look arrogant, but I absolutely refuse to let this one go without
logical reason!

 

The argument non-persuasively put is as follows:

 

Is a USB Ethernet Adapter a "converter"?

 

Personally, I say "no".

 

My coworkers seem to say "yes".

 

My argument:

1)       Ethernet isnt "converted" to USB.  The adapted information from
the ethernet segment may traverse the USB segment if the NIC adapts it
to the CPU, but is never "converted" to USB.

          

          You can use USB for many things, thus making it an underlying
"serial bus" in which other technologies can traverse. 

          

          Whatis.com definition: USB (Universal Serial Bus) is a
plug-and-play interface between a computer and add-on devices (such as
audio players, joysticks, keyboards, telephones, scanners, and
printers). With USB, a new device can be added to your     computer
without having to add an adapter card or even having to turn the
computer off. 

          

          USB in this scenario would be synonymous with PCI, in regards
to the type of technology that interfaces with the cpu.

 

 

2)       I cant seem to place "converter" above layer 1. Yet a Network
adapter ( both PCI or USB ) have layer 2 mac addresses that are stored
into the PROM from the manufactor. From my understanding, if an ethernet
frame comes in via cat5, and is destined for the wrong MAC address, the
traffic will not move up the OSI model and to the PC; It will be dropped
right there and then. Only frames destined for the correct MAC or
broadcast will traverse the USB portion. If this is true, then aparantly
our "converter" is doing a lot more than "converting" ethernet to "USB"!
- Filtering, forwarding, encapsulating, de-encapsulating, etc.

 

 

3)       Just because a device has two physical mediums of connectivity,
dosent make it a "converter". My coworkers argue that a USB Ethernet
adapter is an "Ethernet to USB Converter". If this is true, then the
following could be said:

 

          a.       A PCI Ethernet Adapter is a "converter" because it
"converts" Ethernet to PCI.

          b.       An Alcatel switch w/ a T1 and a DS3 controller card
would be a "converter" because it "converts" cat5 from the T1 card to
coax on the DS3 card.

          c.       Lastly ( I love this one ), An integrated Ethernet
adapter on a motherboard is a "converter" because it "converts" ethernet
to uhh ??  processor? Riiiiight"

 

 

My co-workers arguments are basically that because Ethernet is plugged
into one side, and usb is plugged into the other, it's a converter.



I strongly that's an understament if not an incorrect statement. Whats
your take and why?


Input from ANY of you would be GREATLY appreciated. Otherwise, a simple
"I aggree with you" will be fine also!

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Christopher Aldridge

Network Analyst

CCNA/MCP/MCSA

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20040229/11425b6f/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list