Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!maxim!prc
From: prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: What services does X.25 provide?
Keywords: x.25, services, login, e-mail, file transfer, IPC
Message-ID: <963@maxim.erbe.se>
Date: 17 Oct 89 09:39:40 GMT
References: <796@maxim.erbe.se> <3279@wasatch.utah.edu> <522@wet.UUCP> <6624@pdn.paradyne.com> <23189@cos.com> <1989Oct10.210812.13144@agate.berkeley.edu> <17899@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Organization: ERBE DATA AB, Jarfalla, Sweden
Lines: 22

In article <17899@bellcore.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes:

>It is often said that the US must "migrate" to OSI "so we can
>talk to the Europeans." But the sad truth is that the Europeans will use
>TP0 above X.25 while the US will use TP4 above CLNS. The result will be
>two (or more) incompatible islands, even though both will be nominally
>"OSI compliant".

Well, US GOSIP 1.0 prefers running TP4/CLNS everywhere, even over WAN's
while US GOSIP 2.0 includes TP0/CONS, TP2/CONS, TP4/CONS (for a WAN system
connected to a LAN system) and even TP4/CLNS/CONS (for LAN-WAN-LAN
configurations), just like the Swedish SOSIP 1.0 does. Both of the also
specifies the TELNET VT profile and are looking at the Transparent, Scrolling
and Forms profiles. UK GOSIP 3.0, on the other hand, prefers running TP0/CONS
even on LAN's and mandates the Forms VT profile.

Just to show that all European Government ISO profile's aren't created equal,
even though this admittedly doesn't have much to do with the European PTT's.

-- 
          Robert Claeson      E-mail: rclaeson@erbe.se
	  ERBE DATA AB