Re: X.25 collisions

Article View: comp.protocols.iso

Article #1106

Back to comp.protocols.iso Previous Next

#1106

From: Wolfgang Solfrank
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 1991 11:19

19 lines
1239 bytes

I'm not convinced by your interpretation of the Annexes.

First of all it would result in different interpretations of the
state of the interface by the DTE and the DCE. Consider the
following:

DTE sends RESTART REQUEST
DTE sends e.g. a REGISTRATION REQUEST
DCE sends RESTART INDICATION

Now the DTE views the interface in the r1 state, while for the
DCE it is in the r3 state. This will eventually be corrected thru
a timeout, but I do not consider this situation optimal.

What further confuses me, is the fact that the DCE is (according
to Annex C) supposed to RESTART the interface on these error conditions
only in state r2, but not in state r1.
--
ws@tools.uucp	(Wolfgang Solfrank, TooLs GmbH)	+49-228-230088

Technical Details

Message-ID: <WS.91Feb5121937@kurt.tools.uucp>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!unido!tools!ws

References: <WS.91Jan25190808@karl.tools.uucp> <142961@pyramid.pyramid.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!unido!tools!ws
From: ws@tools.uucp (Wolfgang Solfrank)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: X.25 collisions
Message-ID: <WS.91Feb5121937@kurt.tools.uucp>
Date: 5 Feb 91 11:19:37 GMT
References: <WS.91Jan25190808@karl.tools.uucp> <142961@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Sender: news@tools.UUCP
Organization: TooLs GmbH, Bonn, Germany
Lines: 19
In-reply-to: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com's message of 30 Jan 91 18:35:23 GMT

Reply to Parent Message