🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.protocols.iso
Article #1639

Re: CLNP over IP (was TCP/IP versus OSI)

#1639
From: Christian Huitema
Date: Tue, 16 May 1989 07:47
43 lines
2519 bytes
Dave,

>You cite three situations.  The first has OSI, down to CLNP, running in
>an IP network.  You put in a TSB to allow CLNP to run over OSI Transport
>and then have it translated to run over TCP.  This sounds strange, to say
>the least.  Running CLNP encapsulated over IP, directly, where CLNP views
>IP as a link-level protocol, is far cleaner.

This is a very valid point. I am a bit surprised that nobody proposed a
``standard'' way to ferry CLNP segments as IP datagrams. I know that
there is a big strategic plan to make all the NSFNET a ``dual
protocol'' network; however, it may take some time to fulfill it...

Lets imagine a scenario of the form:

1- Local net runs OSI > TP4 > CLNP over LLC1 over (Ethernet, FDDi, what else..);
2- Local gateway encapsulate CLNP segments of adequate size > IP, sends
them to target gateway;
3- Remote gateway extract CLNP segments, sends them over LLC1 to target
machine, which processes CLNP, TP4, and OSI applications..

It is clean and transparent from an OSI point of view; several gateways
may be used in parallel to the same local net; routing is strictly
based on NSAP addresses, and not on some mysterious transport address
rewriting; flow control and retransmissions are performed end to end..
All these are straightforward advantages over the ``transport gateways''.

Then, why not? For it is even easier to set up a datagram router than a
transport gateway -- much less CPU is needed! Also, the spec is quite
easy to write -- would not need much more than a single page; we only
need to agree on:

1- The particular datagram protocol to be used, i.e. either IP or UDP;
2- If CLNP is run directly over IP, the ``protocol id'' for CLNP;
3- If CLNP is run over UDP, a ``standard port'' for CLNP;
4- Some miscellaneous details on how much to decrement the TTL, and the
maximum size of the CLNP segments;
5- If we want to move that to a grand scale, an ARP protocol for the
projection of NSAPs to IP subaddresses.

What do we wait to have all that written dow in some RFC?

Christian Huitema
Technical Details
Message-ID: <8905160745.AA13357@inria.inria.fr>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!JERRY.INRIA.FR!huitema
References: <8905160028.AA19926@mirsa.inria.fr>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!JERRY.INRIA.FR!huitema
From: huitema@JERRY.INRIA.FR (Christian Huitema)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: CLNP over IP (was TCP/IP versus OSI)
Message-ID: <8905160745.AA13357@inria.inria.fr>
Date: 16 May 89 07:47:41 GMT
References: <8905160028.AA19926@mirsa.inria.fr>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 43