I’m not sure if this is a good idea or bad idea, but I don’t like the idea that we need to know both frame formats. Frame formats are easy to understand and easy to remember. So, if one has a frame format that is different from the other two, then we may need to be able to interpret the two frames to the same extent that we could read them separately.
I’m not sure how much value 2.2 provides in this regard, but I think it’s worth mentioning that ethernet frames are slightly different from one another. Frame2 is designed to be read as a frame from the ethernet connection, while frame3 is designed to be read as a frame from the network connection. It’s entirely possible that frame2 will have a frame from a different network connection than frame3, but that’s entirely possible as well.
If you want to read a frame from two different connections, you need to read two different frames. That is not only easier to do, but less error prone. That said, I’m not sure if these differences are worth it. Either way, ethernet frames are slightly different, and if you are going to read a frame from two different connections, you probably want to read two different frames to make sure you don’t get weird errors.
I don’t know if ethernet frames are worth it, but Im not sure if ethernet frames are worth it, either.
So ethernet frames are slightly different, and if you are going to read a frame from two different connections, you probably want to read two different frames to make sure you dont get weird errors.
Sure, the frames are a bit different, but if you are going to read a frame from two different connections, you probably want to read two different frames to make sure you dont get weird errors.
I think that ethernet frames are actually pretty good. They’re much smaller than TCP (which is really weird) and are faster. You can easily read them as a single packet because TCP has to wait for the entire packet to arrive. They are also easier to parse because there is no header, but some packet parsing tools can make that easier too. You can also parse them as a stream if you want to. I just know that I’m not convinced that ethernet frames are worth it.
I do think ethernet frames are worth it though. Ethernet frames are the way of the future. Since TCP is used every day by almost all servers that deliver e-mail, webpages, and even video streams, you can bet that ethernet frames will be used every day. It’s just a matter of time.
I agree with you on the ethernet frames. Its good to have this extra information in there. The only problem is that it makes it harder to parse. That and the header is more messy than a single byte of data. It also makes it look like you need to do a bunch of hard work to get the data out of the packet. I think ethernet frames are good, if only because its more convenient to parse them.
The header is a bit more complicated than a single byte of data. But you don’t really need that much parsing to get the ethernet frame header out of the byte stream. The header is the frame type plus a variable number of bytes that are used to identify the next packet. So if the frame is a video stream, that means it’s one packet of bytes.
