Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!ATHENA.MIT.EDU!martillo From: martillo@ATHENA.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Separation of Layers Message-ID: <8711050031.AA11673@PARIS.MIT.EDU> Date: Wed, 4-Nov-87 19:31:27 EST Article-I.D.: PARIS.8711050031.AA11673 Posted: Wed Nov 4 19:31:27 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 11-Nov-87 02:31:36 EST References: <8711041745.AA20491@opal.berkeley.edu> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 29 Yes, it sounds like my interpretation won't work. I really was not trying to get TCP/IP to fit into the ISO model which I consider malformed at best. I have some Basic Rate and Primary Rate Interface cards for various machines, and I want to run TCP/IP over them. But I want the option of establishing point to point serial links between machines or X.31 connections to PSPDNs rather than just packet calls to my PBX or local switch which seem to have either miserable or non-existent packet handlers. In this environment I want to dynamically assign IP addresses to channels or groups of channels and I want to tear down links over which there is no traffic because I want to avoid phone bills which could be large in the case of point-to-point rather than packet billing. In such an environment I could anticipate the physical link for an rlogin session going away and then suddenly when there was activity over the TCP VC a new physical link on perhaps a different interface might be established which might end up with a new IP address. Alternatively if possible I would probably like to move calls off the ISDN medium onto the ethernet medium if a dead network suddenly became alive. But given that IP and TCP are apparently really only one layer it can't be done. In any case the problem probably isn't too important since ISDN is too slow to be useful for real networking. Of course for multihomed hosts the reliability issue might be important, but I guess it just can't be done.