Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-hermes!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!sandrock
From: sandrock@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: IBM TCP.
Message-ID: <171500007@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 5-Aug-87 13:18:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uxc.171500007
Posted: Wed Aug  5 13:18:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Aug-87 09:29:18 EDT
References: <11@<12320729020>
Lines: 30
Nf-ID: #R:<12320729020:11:uxc.cso.uiuc.edu:171500007:000:1717
Nf-From: uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!sandrock    Aug  5 12:18:00 1987



   I hope you will bear with me... not being yet familiar with the workings
   of UNIX mail I don't know if my responses to individual mail will also
   be posted here, but I would like to clarify my statements re: DECnet...

   I still have not seen any example of a DECnet-assigned Ethernet address
   which is NOT globally unique. Can someone give such an example of DEC's
   preemption of another vendor's Ethernet address?
     I realize that it would be possible for 2 DECnet nodes to choose the
   same DECnet address thereby choosing the same Ethernet address, but in
   practice of course this is not supposed to happen, anymore than 2 sites
   choosing the same IP address.
     While I also do not know of any "global administration" of DECnet ad-
   dresses, it so happens that here at the University of Illinois we make
   all DECnet address assignments through a contact with the PHYSnet man-
   agement (no, I don't know any more details than that).
     To say this another way, I am free to bring up my own Ethernet (in my
   office, right!) and choose any DECnet and/or IP addresses I want for my
   personal machines, but once I connect my net to the Internet or PHYSnet
   or whatever, I obviously must choose to coexist in harmony (or suffer
   the consequences!).
     Also, I agree that 2**16 unique addresses is an undesirable limitation,
   but at one time it was only 2**10 addresses, and so one might surmise
   that DEC will once again respond to the perceived need for more addresses
   in due time.
     This may all be a moot discussion in light of newer protocols being
   developed (?), but then who can really say? (Not me anyway (:^))

     Mark Sandrock, (sandrock@uiucuxc.UUCP)