Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CHEETAH.NYSER.NET!mrose
From: mrose@CHEETAH.NYSER.NET (Marshall Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.dev-environ
Subject: Re: En coding RFC 1006 addresses in X.500
Message-ID: <10945.632228055@cheetah.nyser.net>
Date: 13 Jan 90 10:54:15 GMT
References: <9001121723.AA12509@janeb.cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 15

Rob - you might want to reread the message.  Tausworthe did not mention
the use of TS-bridges.  Use of the interim addressing scheme is
primarily so that hosts running OSI on RFC1006-style stacks can have
their addresses stored transparently in the Directory.

As far as revisiting the use of Interim addressing for RFC1006-style
stacks, frankly I don't see the need, since once you see the 54...
prefix, you just let IP do the routing.  Presumably IP can do this now!
Sounds like a lot of change without any benefit to me.

Finally, if you consult the Kille's paper on Interim addresses, you'll
see that there are fields there for specifying alternate ports (besides
102) and alternate protocols (besides TCP, e.g., UDP).

/mtr