>> >In order to not have to change the MTU of everything, you'd have to
>> >fragment out 4096 byte FDDI frames into 1500 byte ethernet frames.
>> 
>> ...which would make it not really a bridge since it's operating on
>> level datagrams, and as such, ought to also be decrementing the ttl,
>> etc.
>
>IIRC, The Cisco 1200s I use at home don't decrement TTL when bridging fddi
>to ethernet or vice-versa.  Now, whether or not that's correct is
>debatable... what is the defacto (or RFC) for bridging which requires
>some form of protocol groking, such as with MTUs, etc...?

imho, it's incorrect.  in my understanding, a bridge is supposed to be
a transparent network appliance, and if it's gonna start mucking with
layer 3, then it's no longer transparent.

otoh, other things do the much-with-layer-3-but-don't-be-a-router game
as well.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."