Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.iso:1256 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:13163
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hacgate!ladcgw.ladc.bull.com!melb.bull.oz.au!news
From: sjg@sun0.melb.bull.oz.au (Simon J. Gerraty)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: SLIP over X.25
Message-ID: <1990Sep27.003241.4907@melb.bull.oz.au>
Date: 27 Sep 90 00:32:41 GMT
References: <1990Sep18.143414.4441@hq.demos.su> <1990Sep19.112128.2154@swbull.bull.se> <BOB.90Sep19164020@volitans.MorningStar.Com> <PATRICK.HAYES.90Sep24152302@troy.cediag.bull.fr> <128135@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Sender: news@melb.bull.oz.au
Reply-To: sjg@sun0.melb.bull.oz.au (Simon J. Gerraty)
Organization: Bull HN I.S. Australia
Lines: 29
In-Reply-To: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst)

In article <128135@pyramid.pyramid.com>, csg@pyramid (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes:
>>The major problem seems to be that B.O.S.'s X3/X29 interface uses one line-
>>discipline, and SLIP uses another. Trying to use both blows my connection.

I have obviously caught the tail end of this chain...
Could some one please explain why anyone is trying to run SLIP
on top of the X3/X29 service ? 

In article <1990Sep19.112128.2154@swbull.bull.se> love@swbull.bull.se (Love Feuer) writes:
>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.

To my knowledge the DPX/2 supports IP over X.25 without fiddling
about with SLIP.  I have not seen any references that indicated
that UDP/IP should not work.  [But of course I haven't tried it
myself :-)]

>[Enter Flame Mode: My big gripe with virtually everyone who is implementing
>CCITT and ISO protocols on UNIX is that they insist on forcing new and unusual
>paradigms on the users, instead of implementing the protocols in such a way
>that they fit well into UNIX paradigms. The present implementations of X.400
>are especially extreme examples, seeming to have been designed in a vacuum.]

Perhaps its because X.400 was designed in a vacuum ? :-)
--
Simon J. Gerraty			<sjg@sun0.melb.bull.oz.au>

#include <disclaimer>             /* imagine something *very* witty here */