Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CS.WISC.EDU!hagens
From: hagens@CS.WISC.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.dev-environ
Subject: Re: Encoding RFC 1006 addresses in X.500
Message-ID: <9001171725.AA18368@janeb.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 90 17:25:11 GMT
References: <12349.632257882@cheetah.nyser.net>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 32


> Given this, I'm having a hard time
> figuring out why either a) we need to use different prefixes, or b) we
> need to define different mappings.  There is no problem, Kille solved it
> for us.

Marshall,

As I stated before, my interest in this encoding scheme extends only
to the use of ts-bridges to connect a TP4/CLNS stack to a TP0/1006/TCP stack.
(For the sake of discussion, I am ignoring the TP0/X.25 stack)

In preparing a plan for the incorporation of OSI into the United States Internet,
I feel that I must recommend a way to use ts-bridges when TP4/CLNS connectivity
is not possible. The use of ts-bridges obviously requires a scheme to encode
a 1006 address in the directory. It will work to encode the 1006 address in
an NSAP, and put that NSAP in the directory. However, I cannot, as
part of a transition plan for the United States Internet, recommend that 1006
addresses be placed in an address space devoted to Steve Kille in the UK!

What I can recommend is that a small portion of the 470005 space be allocated
to be used *in the same manner* as the 54... space. I cannot understand why
you think it is bad to do this. We could request that NIST allocate 
Admin Authority value 000002 (say) for the storage of 1006 addresses.
Then, IP address 10.0.0.6 with port 9 could be encoded as

	470005 00 000002 0000 0000 0000 0a000006xx 00
or something similar to that. 

End of Message,

rob