Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.lans:1520 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:3934 comp.protocols.iso:108
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!prlb2!kulcs!dannyb
From: dannyb@kulcs.uucp (Danny Backx)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: TLI transport specific addresses
Keywords: TLI transport independence
Message-ID: <118@icarus.kulcs.uucp>
Date: 1 Jul 88 07:10:20 GMT
References: <297@scolex>
Reply-To: dannyb@kulcs.UUCP (Danny Backx)
Organization: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Dept. Computer Science
Lines: 31

In article <297@scolex> timon@sco.COM (timon) writes:
>
>		a puzzle for the net:
>
>AT+T chose not to define an addressing scheme for their
>TLI library.  Instead they require the user program to pass
>to the transport a pointer to an undefined address structure.
>This requires that the user program know what address structure
>the transport is expecting, and therefore makes each user
>program transport specific.

I don't think what you describe is a BAD thing, I think it is a good thing !
Suppose they had defined an addressing scheme in their TLI. In that case you
could only work with that addressing scheme.

What they do now isn't really transport specific. Your programs shouldn't be
using adresses. They should use host names, and transform these host names
into addresses using (e.g.) calls to a name server. These calls provide you
with something, and you can pass a pointer to that something to TLI.

So, in summary : apart from TLI, only the name server should know about
address structures.

  -- Danny

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 Danny Backx                            |  mail: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven 
 Tel: +32 16 200656 x 3544              |        Dept. Computer Science
 E-mail: dannyb@kulcs.UUCP              |        Celestijnenlaan 200 A
         ... mcvax!prlb2!kulcs!dannyb   |        B-3030 Leuven
         dannyb@blekul60.BITNET         |        Belgium