Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!haven!decuac!shlump.nac.dec.com!carafe.enet.dec.com!goldstein
From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: A proposal on a new newsgroup "comp.protocols.migrate.to.iso"[Part 1]
Message-ID: <12369@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Date: 11 Jun 90 17:52:50 GMT
Sender: newsdaemon@shlump.nac.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Lines: 63


In article <4460@infmx.UUCP>, kwang@infmx.UUCP (Kwang Sung) writes...
>	Recently, I've proposed a new newsgroup "comp.protocols.migrate.to.iso".
>I've received so many responses. Among those, I've selected some best ones, 
>after I've thrown out some bad ones. I couldn't reply to all of you, since it's
>so many. However, I might be able to answer thru this network. I think some 
>people still don't understand how/where this networking world is going to. 
>Absolutely, and positively, the world is moving toward one OSI world !!,
>even if ISODE has screwed up OSI world a little bit. 

John Franey, who works for the same company that I do (and I don't
think either of us is speaking officially here!) says, 
>TCP/IP is connectionless, OSI is connection oriented.
>Multimedia needs multiple synchronized data circuits.  Datagrams can't be lost
>or take variously different routes (TCP/IP).

That basically is wrong.  TCP/IP is connectionless (CL) at the top of the 
network layer.  OSI offers BOTH CO and CL services.  DECnet/OSI provies
the CLNS, not unlike IP.  It also supports the CONS when needed for
compatibility, but its "native language" is connectionless.  ISO settled 
the CLNS/CONS war by standardizing both.  And multimedia is irrelevant.
If anything, the higher speeds possible in CLNS tend to make it more
applicable for multimedia than CONS, which is X.25-based.

>DEC has commited itself to OSI.  All of its customers computer network nodes
>are going to be converted to OSI with the release of DECnet Phase V.  I work
>for DEC but not in communications engineering but please don't think this is a
>plug.  

While I'm not a spokesman, I do work for DEC in communications 
engineering.  We have certainly taken a leading role in OSI.  But we
are also building TCP/IP.  And while Phase V is OSI up to Layer 3 it
supports OSI and non-OSI in parallel using a "towers" approach.  Most
DEC-DEC applications won't use the OSI upper layers.  Note that it's
the upper layers of OSI that are most controversial.

>TCP/IP is NOT popular in Europe.  It doesn't surprise me that its not popular
>in Korea either.  The big reason here is that the PTTs that implement and
>use the networks in Europe are connection oriented.  They wand Virtual
>Circuits.  TCP/IP is a datagram network and is not acceptable.

The PTTs only own their own internal networks.  They provide X.25
subnetworks.  In OSI terminology (see ISO8648) ANY public network
is just a subnetwork; you may run an NS-protocol on top of it.  So
you can run OSI-CLNS (ISO8473, found in DECnet/OSI) and be fully
OSI compliant, or you can run IP above it and be fully TCP/IP compliant.
The PTTs have no say in what you do above their subnet layers.  
Datagrams are not easy to bill for, so the subnet is still CO.

I post this because I don't think the terms of reference of this debate 
should be based on misinformation, like "OSI is connection-oriented"
or "PTTs won't allow TCP/IP to be used in Europe."  OSI CLNS + TP4
is not very different (semantically) from IP and TCP.  They provide a
growth path, especially since IP addressing has obvious limitations.  
But they also provide coexistence.  TCP/IP is a valued technology and
while comp.protocols.osi.migration might be a good group to have,
extremist anti-TCP/IP rhetoric will make the transition harder and more
painful for all involved. 
---
Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com 
                 or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com
                    voice:  +1 508 486 7388 
opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission