Use of ethernet frame without TCP/IP

Use of ethernet frame without TCP/IP
NewsGroups | Search | Tools
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 comp.dcom.lans.ethernet  Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Use of ethernet frame without TCP/IP indermeet.gandhi 03-17-2008
Posted by on March 17, 2008, 5:48 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Hi All,

I guess this question would be quite trivial but nevertheless I had a
doubt.

I need to transfer some amount of data(1000 bytes) between 2 system
running linux . each having its own NIC.

Though these are connected via LAN cable , they are not connected to
Internet .

I need to encapsulte the data in the ethernet frame without using TCP/
IP . Only just the length parameter in the EtherType/Length field of
ethernet frame . Is this possible ?
If yes , how can it be done ?


Network Magic 20% Off NMEASY coupon code spring banner 468x60
Posted by jpd on March 17, 2008, 9:26 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:48:59 -0700 (PDT),
> I need to transfer some amount of data(1000 bytes) between 2 system
> running linux . each having its own NIC.
>
> Though these are connected via LAN cable , they are not connected to
> Internet .

You could setup a private IP network, using addresses from the private
blocks detailed in [RFC1918].


> I need to encapsulte the data in the ethernet frame without using TCP/
> IP . Only just the length parameter in the EtherType/Length field of
> ethernet frame . Is this possible ?
> If yes , how can it be done ?

Well, yes, altough the details depend on the software you're using.
Under linux opening a raw ethernet socket (which probably requires
root rights) is a possibility.

Question is, what made you conclude you need to bypass the IP stack and
dispense with its services?

As noted above, there is a way to use IP addresses while not connected
to the internet. I think doing that will likely be simpler and easier.


[RFC1918] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1918.txt

--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

Posted by on March 18, 2008, 12:00 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

> You could setup a private IP network, using addresses from the private
> blocks detailed in [RFC1918].
>
> > I need to encapsulte the data in the ethernet frame without using TCP/
> > IP . Only just the length parameter in the EtherType/Length field of
> > ethernet frame . Is this possible ?
> > If yes , how can it be done ?
>
> Well, yes, altough the details depend on the software you're using.
> Under linux opening a raw ethernet socket (which probably requires
> root rights) is a possibility.
>
> Question is, what made you conclude you need to bypass the IP stack and
> dispense with its services?
>
> As noted above, there is a way to use IP addresses while not connected
> to the internet. I think doing that will likely be simpler and easier.
>

Well , if I want to talk between 2 ethernet devices directly ( both in
same LAN) , won't the bypassing of IP stack provide me with better
latency , avoiding overhead of IP header ( or maybe TCP header ) .


Posted by Patrick Schaaf on March 18, 2008, 3:15 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
indermeet.gandhi@gmail.com writes:

>Well , if I want to talk between 2 ethernet devices directly ( both in
>same LAN) , won't the bypassing of IP stack provide me with better
>latency , avoiding overhead of IP header ( or maybe TCP header ) .

Yes. Will your program be written in assembler? Otherwise, the overhead
of your high level language probably eats any real advantage from
the saved network processing.

best regards
Patrick

Posted by glen herrmannsfeldt on March 18, 2008, 7:20 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
indermeet.gandhi@gmail.com wrote:
(snip)

> Well , if I want to talk between 2 ethernet devices directly ( both in
> same LAN) , won't the bypassing of IP stack provide me with better
> latency , avoiding overhead of IP header ( or maybe TCP header ) .

If you want to avoid latency, you will probably do better with UDP.

The UDP header isn't that big.

-- glen


Similar ThreadsPosted
detecting end/length of Ethernet II frame? April 28, 2005, 11:03 am
min size for VLAN tagged ethernet frame November 2, 2006, 4:45 am
Shortest ethernet frame time = 5.76uS? September 9, 2008, 4:55 pm
Difference between Ethernet 2 and 802.3 Frame per the Ethernet FAQ July 28, 2006, 9:02 am
under sized frame February 2, 2007, 9:37 am
Pause Frame transmission May 19, 2006, 7:05 pm
Strange ethrenet frame October 4, 2006, 10:54 am
SMII Frame format queries April 26, 2005, 10:34 pm
VLAN tagged PAUSE frame? November 2, 2006, 9:06 pm
About the minimum Eth. frame length determination October 30, 2007, 6:19 am

other useful resources:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Telecommunications Industry Association
Electronic and Software Security Products and Services
International Telecommunication Union

Custom CGI Perl and PHP programming by 1-Script.com

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
The site map in XML format XML site map