Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!UDEL.EDU!Mills
From: Mills@UDEL.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  IP datagram sizes
Message-ID: <8706020056.a000874@Huey.UDEL.EDU>
Date: Tue, 2-Jun-87 00:56:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: Huey.8706020056.a000874
Posted: Tue Jun  2 00:56:13 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jun-87 06:13:42 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 11

Jon,

THe X.25 model requires X.75 gateways to handle M-bit repacketizing between
two networks with different packet sizes. This requires route-binding between
the gateways, which runs completely contrary to the basic Internet architecure.
If we are to accept your suggestion we would have to drop this fundamental
cornerstone in the model. Is the increment in performance possibly achieved
by route-binding justify the loss in robustness and flexibility inherent in
the present model? I'm not looking for a debate, just refining the perspective.

Dave