Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU!hedrick
From: hedrick@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Connecting DECnet routers over IP
Message-ID: <8709170606.AA08773@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Thu, 17-Sep-87 02:06:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.8709170606.AA08773
Posted: Thu Sep 17 02:06:03 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Sep-87 07:27:25 EDT
References: <8709160707.AA04585@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 14

If someone seriously needs this, and uses Cisco IP routers, please
tell me.  I have an implementation of DECnet for the Cisco routers.
Encapsulating DECnet in IP would be fairly easy in my implementation.
However there is no obvious advantage to doing this, unless you need
to send DECnet between two Ethernets that are fairly far apart.  That
is, if somebody at UCI wanted to talk DECnet to somebody at Rutgers,
it might make sense to send DECnet over the Arpanet encapsulated in IP
(though I'd probably first investigate allocating a link type for
DECnet).  But for two Ethernets on one campus, this probably does not
make sense.  In order to get a DECnet host to send you packets for
forwarding, you must implement most of the DECnet routing layer.
Having done so, you might as well finish it and become a real DECnet
router.  In that case, there's no particular reason to encapsulate
DECnet in IP.  You might as well route it as DECnet.