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