Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.iso:1238 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:13063 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mstar!mstar.morningstar.com!bob From: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso,comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: SLIP over X.25 Message-ID: Date: 19 Sep 90 20:40:27 GMT References: <1990Sep18.143414.4441@hq.demos.su> <1990Sep19.112128.2154@swbull.bull.se> Sender: usenet@MorningStar.COM (USENET Administrator) Reply-To: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Organization: Morning Star Technologies Lines: 23 In-Reply-To: love@swbull.bull.se's message of 19 Sep 90 11:21:28 GMT In article <1990Sep19.112128.2154@swbull.bull.se> love@swbull.bull.se (Love Feuer) writes: dvv@hq.demos.su (Dmitry V. Volodin) writes: Have anybody tried this weird combination? Yup. [...and then describes running TCP/IP over X.25, without mentioning SLIP.] Many X.25 implementations (ours, for instance) support IP directly, which (for routing purposes) just sees the virtual circuits as wires. I'm not sure why Mr. Volodin wants to put SLIP in the pile, though. B.O.S. does not support UDP/IP over X.25. The reason for this is probably that nobody should get the very, very sick idea of running NFS over X.25. That's odd. Far less sick things use UDP, like the Network Time Protocol and the Domain Name System. They're both entirely appropriate and necessary to run over long-haul links like X.25. I'd speculate that the reason Bull doesn't support UDP over X.25 involves NFS aesthetics less than the cost of setting up and tearing down virtual circuits for the tiny, "cheap" packets that UDP applications expect to exchange. Ask for a CLNS next time :-)