Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!PADLIPSKY
From: PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU (Michael Padlipsky)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Advantages/Disadvantages Of TCP+Router Vs. Straight X.25
Message-ID: <12660266244.22.PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU>
Date: 8 Feb 91 01:59:33 GMT
References: <38836@cup.portal.com>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 35

Will Estes--

Although I could, if I were willing to risk the Wrath of Postel, offer
a semi-reputable definition of "datagram" that would render the notion
of "reliable datagram" non-oxymoronic, even I know of no definition of
"Internet" that would salvage the notion of an X.25-only Internet.  Indeed,
by definition an X.25 communications subnetwork is a single net, not
an inter-net; that is, "Internet" is not a contraction of "intercomputer
network", it's a replacement for the earlier, but apparently too subtle,
term, "catenet" (originally meant to convey a concatenation of sundry
individual/single comm subnets).

On second thought, considering what happened to the term "gateway" once
the heffalumpers got at it, perhaps I should say that "Internet" was
never INTENDED to be a mere contraction for "intercomputer network", though
IFF it were used in that solecistic sense I suppose your second alternative
would at least be lexically licit.  It would still be a bad idea, however,
since it's precisely to allow Host computers attached to various/"all"
comm subnet "technologies" to interoperate that the proper sense of Internet
(and Catenet before it) was invented for--and it's precisely that breadth
of attachment options which X.25 precludes, almost by definition and
certainly in practice (since even "X.75"'s presence to connect independent
X.25 instances does not cover the very common case of Local Area Networks
which are not attached to via X.25, Host-to-LAN; thus, there can't/couldn't
be a REAL X.25 Internet until and unless the world went mad enough to force
LANs to present almost utterly inappropriate to LAN interfaces).

cheers, map

P.S.  Lest any of the usual X.25 apologists be tempted to argue that
X.25 SHOULD be the required interface to all LANs, I'd observe that
such matters should only be discussed on the CCITT1996 and/or CCITT2000
mailing lists, not here--and I'd wish them the best of luck in getting it
adhered to even if they do get it voted for....
-------