Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucbarpa!fair
From: fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio.packet
Subject: Re: IP/TCP bumps and grinds
Message-ID: <10663@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 02:58:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10663
Posted: Tue Oct 15 02:58:27 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Oct-85 05:20:18 EDT
References: <78@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.ARPA
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 24

I may have missed the point, but why bother running IP over X.25, when
IP (as a pure datagram protocol) is ideally suited to packet-radio?
Of course, I'm somewhat flush with missionary spirit right now,
since I just finished Michael Padlipsky's book,

	``The Elements of Networking Style''
	(Prentice-Hall, 1985)

It seems to me that if you're the only one doing IP right now, you can
build a superior network up from scratch, which might (if you made it
easy for them) convince the rest of the packet-radio community to
convert by example. I think that it would be terrific to have a public,
ARPANET-style resource-sharing network running over packet-radio,
instead of an X.25 based terminal-to-computer network which that protocol
implies.

Also, by running IP over X.25, you're stuck with the limitations of the
X.25 protocol (e.g. no alternate routing) unless you're doing something
clever that I didn't spot in your description.

On the other hand, since this list is based partially on the ARPANET,
maybe I'm preaching to the converted...

	Erik E. Fair	ucbvax!fair	fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU