🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9002262206.AA06111@jessica.Stanford.EDU> morgan@jessica.stanford.edu writes:
>
>CAP normally uses AppleTalk-in-UDP encapsulation (sometimes called
>IPTalk), which as it stands is only a "non-extended" network.  Which
>is to say, IPTalk networks don't support multiple net numbers and
>multiple zone names per cable.  There have been some proposals to
>extend IPTalk to have P2 features, but none have seen the light of day
>so far.

The aspect of IPTalk which works well is mapping AppleTalk
socket numbers to UDP port numbers. The bit which works badly
if at all is the mapping of AppleTalk node numbers to IP
addresses.

My impressions of Phase II are that it's a lashup, so I'd not
have high expectations of the cross-fertilisation of the two
schemes. Is there any mileage in a principled compromise, where
the IP addresses used on the cable and the P2 net numbers are
directly related by some rule (rather than a lookup table), and
the P2 multiple-net cable is required to have only one zone?

If we are crystal ball gazing, what chance of avoiding IP Phase
2, if the worldwide Internet really gets going?

-- 

William Roberts                 ARPA: liam@cs.qmw.ac.uk
Queen Mary & Westfield College  UUCP: liam@qmw-cs.UUCP
Mile End Road                   AppleLink: UK0087
LONDON, E1 4NS, UK              Tel:  01-975 5250 (Fax: 01-980 6533)