Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CISCO.COM!forster
From: forster@CISCO.COM (Jim Forster)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: CLNP over X.25?
Message-ID: <8908060006.AA25866@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 5 Aug 89 21:26:52 GMT
References: <679@anagld.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 23

Shawn,

I'm by no means an expert on the specs, but I have read them, and I think
I remember this:

8473/DAD1 was accepted and is an official part of 8473 (at least as
official as appendices ever are), so it did not go away. I think your
puzzlement is an effect of the great connection-oriented versus
connection-less religious battles in the OSI process.  These battles were
resolved by the political process of declaring both methods as 'standards'.
CLNP is the Connection-Less variety, CONS is the Connection-Oriented variety.
GOSIP V.1 requires CLNP over both Ethernet & X.25.  GOSIP V.2 added an
CONS as an option.

Generally it seems that in the US, CLNP is preferred over CONS.  It's quite
straightforward to make routers forward CLNP packets between X.25 and
Ethernet, Token Ring, FDDI, T-1 rate serial lines or whatever.  I guess if
you're running CONS/X.25 you would turn around and run X.25 over Ethernet,
which is advocated in the UK.  I guess the extension of this is that you'd
run X.25 over Token Ring and FDDI, but I've never heard that even muttered.

   Jim Forster
   cisco Systems