Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!rutgers!bellcore!ka9q.bellcore.com!karn
From: karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: What services does X.25 provide?
Keywords: x.25, services, login, e-mail, file transfer, IPC
Message-ID: <17701@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Date: 23 Sep 89 05:49:30 GMT
References: <796@maxim.erbe.se> <3279@wasatch.utah.edu> <522@wet.UUCP> <1989Sep18.020822.16329@cit5.cit.oz> <727@idacom.UUCP> <17683@bellcore.bellcore.com> <6576@pdn.paradyne.com>
Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com
Reply-To: karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn)
Organization: Secular Humanists for No-Code
Lines: 21

>Seems like a quantum leap from an obvious hack to a blanket condemnation
>of X.25.  It would be easy (and obvious?) for a private X.25 network to
>open the window size to a more optimal value based on number of hops.

The specific situation I was describing (IP on Telenet) involved a public
data network, and Telenet didn't support any way to negotiate the window
size to a more optimum value.

You have a point with regard to private X.25 networks. But you beg the
question, because private networks have the option of using something other
than X.25. Why should I use X.25 in my private computer network in the first
place?  ("Because it's an *International* *Standard*!" doesn't carry much
weight in my book).

If you need to build a private network that can support certain hosts or
applications that require an X.25 network service, you should do it without
inflicting X.25 on the rest of us that don't want or need it. For example,
Cisco's new software release supports the creation of a virtual X.25 network
on top of an IP network.

Phil