Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CS.WISC.EDU!hagens
From: hagens@CS.WISC.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: CLNP over IP (was TCP/IP versus OSI)
Message-ID: <8905171952.AA24238@janeb.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 17 May 89 19:52:25 GMT
References: <8905160745.AA13357@inria.inria.fr>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 28



> This is a very valid point. I am a bit surprised that nobody proposed a
> ``standard'' way to ferry CLNP segments as IP datagrams.
> ...
>
> 1- The particular datagram protocol to be used, i.e. either IP or UDP;
> 2- If CLNP is run directly over IP, the ``protocol id'' for CLNP;
> 3- If CLNP is run over UDP, a ``standard port'' for CLNP;
> 4- Some miscellaneous details on how much to decrement the TTL, and the
> maximum size of the CLNP segments;
> 5- If we want to move that to a grand scale, an ARP protocol for the
> projection of NSAPs to IP subaddresses.

> What do we wait to have all that written dow in some RFC?

> Christian Huitema
Christian,

RFC1070 defines much of what you suggested (except parts of #4). However,
the intended use of RFC1070 is for experimenting. Our solution to #5
was to use ES-IS (Internet-wide multicast). This clearly does not scale!
The IETF-OSI WG is working on a "production" version of 1070 that would
include some kind of routing protocol to run between the encapsulation-
gateways.

Rob Hagens
UW Madison Computer Science