🚀 go-pugleaf

ketil@edb.tih.no (Ketil Albertsen,TIH) writes:
> Evidence 1: The real world. The vast majority of networks following OSI
> standards do run CONS. To put it squarely: They run X.25, which is CONS.

Actually a lot of them run X.25 (1980), which, as far as I know, is *not*
a full CONS. This was the case here in Norway at least a couple of years ago -
The Norwegian Telecom ran a mix of X.25 (1980) and X.25 (1984). I don't know
what the situation is today. Also, according to Olav Kvittem, not even X.25
(1984) is a full CONS, because it doesn't handle a normal 20-octet NSAP.

> starting point. Eg, is there *any* OSI *applications* that actually uses
> connectionless mode? (Note that I was careful to state 'OSI is CO' in

Yes, DECnet Phase V...

> In essence, those fighting for CLTS want it for running their non-OSI
> Internet applications.

That's your interpretation. I don't expect everybody to agree.

> NE does *not* do what it is supposed to according to X.200. I have a 
> definite impression that TP4 was included with the sole purpose of "selling"
> OSI to the IP camp. IMHO, TP4 should never have been included. It is OK

So what do we use if we want reliability? TP0 over X.25 is simply not good
enough. TP0 and TP4 are by far the most commonly implemented...

> As long as we keep the non-OSI-spirit TP4 out of it, it is much simpler.

If I'm not allowed to use TP4, I'll stick to my Internet protocols, thank you.

Steinar Haug, system/networks administrator
SINTEF DELAB, University of Trondheim, NORWAY
Email: Steinar.Haug@delab.sintef.no, 
	sthaug@idt.unit.no, steinar@tosca.er.sintef.no