🚀 go-pugleaf

Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes:

>I would like to get opinions on pros and cons for setting up an
>Internet.  The two setups are:

    You didn't say what sort of sites you're connecting, but from
    your mentioning connecting sites to a PDN, I'm thinking you've
    got clusters of machines, with the clusters connected by X.25
    over PDN...if that's a bad assumption, sorry.

>1) All sites on the internet have routers that attach to a public
>data network, like UUNET's Alternet, and use TCP/IP to communicate
>between nodes on the net.  To the extent that X.25 might be used
>underneath TCP between the routers, this is invisible to the
>applications.

>2) All sites on the internet connect directly to an X.25 network,
>and any client-server applications between two sites are written
>directly to an X.25 API or to some software abstraction that is
>written on top of X.25.

>What are the advantages to either approach?  Clearly 2) is going
>to be more efficient since you don't have the extra error-checking
>of TCP and you don't have the extra data bandwidth of the router
>headers being attached to each packet.  This advantage aside, are
>there any decisive advantages that argue for approach 1)?

    Approach 1 (TCP) buys you the flexibility of using a standard
    API (sockets, streams, etc.) while retaining the flexibility of 
    changing/adding to your underlying network technology as your network
    grows, changes shape, etc. and communications technology improves.
    You can mix/match non-X.25 network elements with your existing X.25
    parts, and your applications just keep working.

Steve Huston                        +1 508 620 2800 ext 3099
Huston@Relay.Prime.COM              Prime Computer, Inc.

The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of Prime Computer.