Article View: comp.protocols.iso
Article #1639Re: CLNP over IP (was TCP/IP versus OSI)
From: Christian Huitema
Date: Tue, 16 May 1989 07:47
Date: Tue, 16 May 1989 07:47
43 lines
2519 bytes
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!huitemaReferences:
<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