🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Mar20.175543.4694@tmsoft.uucp> woods@tmsoft.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes:
>>Topic: I've been confused by much of what I've been reading about
>>'migration from TCP/IP to ISO'.
>>
>>Is this necessary?
>
>YES!!!  I think it will make things simpler...

No it won't.  Ever read an ISO spec and compared it to the TCP/IP spec?

The migration is necessary for political, not technical reasons.  The ISO
protocols, at least the ones seen so far, have *no* technical advantages
over TCP/IP that matter.  What's more, they are largely-untried protocols
designed by large committees (whereas TCP/IP are thoroughly shaken-down
protocols designed by a few people).  They have a lot of political momentum
behind them and are hence inevitable, unfortunately.

The one bright spot is that *both* TCP/IP and ISO are likely to be obsolete
within a decade anyway, since neither one appears to be capable of the
performance needed for really high-speed networks.  A cynic might suggest
simply postponing ISO conversion until it's clearly obsolete and not worth
bothering with -- everybody has to be able to speak TCP/IP for now anyhow.

>>Is it safe for a new network to just start with ISO now?
>
>Do you have any machines using TCP?  If not, I think the answer is
>yes...

That depends on how much you value the many man-years of experience with
TCP/IP.  Pioneering new protocols tends to be painful.  *I* wouldn't call
it "safe" for a production system.

Also, are you sure you'll *never* have any TCP/IP-only machines on your
network?  Even the Corporation for Open Systems, which is dedicated to
promoting ISO, found it had to use TCP/IP internally for a while.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu