Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!ig!bionet!lear
From: lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: TCP/IP vs. OSI Performance
Message-ID: <Mar.26.16.30.50.1989.18182@NET.BIO.NET>
Date: 27 Mar 89 00:30:50 GMT
References: <529@skep2.ATT.COM> <9882@megaron.arizona.edu> <14957@bellcore.bellcore.com> <9896@megaron.arizona.edu>
Organization: Natl Computer Resource for Mol. Biology
Lines: 26
To: jms@mis.arizona.edu

This is a minor technical correction (it became apparent while
discussing your article with someone).  An IP address does not imply a
route.  Given an address and nothing more, one cannot determine a
route.  Never-the-less, in order for an Internet to be well connected,
routing information about an address must be kept, if nowhere else, at
the entrance points to an internet (in the simplest case).  I see
things from the DARPA Internet point of view.  How is routing done
with ISO IP?

From my little introduction to ISO protocols (Stallings), it sounds to
me like routing would be handled very much like it is handled
on the Internet.  Stallings says (Volume I p. 169):

	Network service users cannot derive routing information from
	NSAP addresses.  They cannot control the route chosen by the
	network service by the choice of the synonym and they cannot
	deduce the route taken by an incoming NSDU from the NSAP
	address.  However, as pointed out by CCITT document [X.213],
	NSAP addresses should be constructed, when possible, in such a
>>>	way as to facilitate routing through an internet.  That is,	<<<
>>>	the network service providers, especially gateways, may be	<<<
>>>	able to take advantage of the address structure to achieve	<<<
>>>	economical processing of routing aspects.			<<<

To me this sounds very much like something that could have been stated
in RFC791.