Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!princeton!allegra!ulysses!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!LYNCH
From: LYNCH@A.ISI.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Submission for mod-protocols-tcp-ip
Message-ID: <8702030340.AA14641@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 2-Feb-87 22:27:45 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8702030340.AA14641
Posted: Mon Feb  2 22:27:45 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Feb-87 01:38:46 EST
References: <8702021415.AA15453@oucs.OHIOU.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 18
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

Brian,  In a nutshell:  TCP/IP and XNS are very similar in the kinds of
low level services they offer (like connecting terminals to hosts).
In the higher level services (like file transfer and email) they differ
only in the aspect of how many different host types does your situation
need to communicate with.  TCP/IP has implementations
on essentially every host in existence.  XNS is much more limited
in that respect.  In your situation going with TCP/IP can only
open up your choices.  Bridge is offering you equivalent initial
functionality with a "bridge" to further functionality (by moving
to TCP/IP).  You say that you will be connecting to a supercomputer
center soon.  It will undoubtedly be TCP/IP based.  And gaining access
to BITNET (meanwhile) is very close to working in TCP/IP land
as their mail protocols are very close to TCP/IP's and getting
closer.  I'll send you some more materials in the US Snail, includi9ng
a reading list.

Dan
-------