Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CS.WISC.EDU!hagens
From: hagens@CS.WISC.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.dev-environ
Subject: Re: En coding RFC 1006 addresses in X.500
Message-ID: <9001121723.AA12509@janeb.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 12 Jan 90 17:23:18 GMT
References: <38120005@hpindda.HP.COM>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 28


> What is the current status of the use of "An Interim approach to use of
> Network Addresses" by S.E. Kille?

> If I recieve a Presentation Address from Quipu (or any other X.500)
> which has an NSAP component with a prefix of 540072872203, can I assume
> that this is an encoding of a RFC 1006 address?

> Is there another method for encoding RFC 1006 addresses into NSAPs, or
> for  storing them in naming services such as X.500?

> 		       Bob Tausworthe
> 		       tozz@hpda.hp.com

Bob,

	Ts-bridges may prove very handy as a "last resort" way to achieve
	connectivity between osi systems that are connected by tcp/ip.

	However, the US Internet will not want to use a 54... prefix to
	identify these addresses. I think that we need to revisit the idea
	of encoding a 1006 address in the 470005 space.

	While I am on the subject, is there any Good reason to provide the
	flexiblity of port and udp/tcp selector? Tcp with port what-ever
	(102?) seems good enough.

Rob