Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!kth!draken!ttds!rajaei
From: rajaei@ttds.UUCP (Hassan Rajaei)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: IP over X.25 (request for info)
Message-ID: <1193@ttds.UUCP>
Date: 14 Feb 89 11:55:35 GMT
References: <8902081711.AA07245@gateway.mitre.org> <11201@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <13962@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Reply-To: rajaei@tds.kth.se (Hassan Rajaei)
Organization: The Royal Inst. of Techn., Stockholm
Lines: 22

In article <13962@bellcore.bellcore.com> karn@jupiter.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:

>On the other hand, CSNET's experience with real commercial X.25 networks
>like Telenet has shown that multiple parallel virtual circuits are often
>necessary anyway to even approach acceptable performance. The problem is the
>small X.25 packet size limit and the tiny packet-layer flow control window.
>In the absence of a mechanism for increasing this window you are forced to
>open up additional circuits and distribute your traffic among them. Face it,
>X.25 was designed for remote slow-speed terminal networking, not serious
>computer networking.

I quite agree with Phil. X.25 can not satisfy the high performance needed
for high-speed communication and certainly not for internetworking. Isn't
it really funny to have VC over a large network while it is not necessary?
I believe the PTTs have done some mistake and now it is hard for them to 
admit and backup. The investment is so enormous that nobody dare to backup
just like FORTRAN. I don't care which protocol the commercial world want to
use, but I do care what scientists and researchers use or will use. These
people have already started the alternative solutions. If other people listen
enough we can hope for a newer and better standard than X.25.

Hassan Rajaei