Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!cheetah.nyser.net!mrose
From: mrose@cheetah.nyser.net (Marshall Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: CONS / CLNS interworking
Message-ID: <25317.612334550@cheetah.nyser.net>
Date: 28 May 89 04:55:50 GMT
References: <142@.oasis.icl.stc.co.uk>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: iso@sri-nic.ARPA
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 35

Keith - 

Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing?  The transport service
bridge I am referring to is generic: you can bridge any two of:

	tp4/clnp/(802 or x.25)
	tp0/x.25
	rfc1006/tcp

and presumably

	tp1-3/x.25

(which I haven't done since I don't have a tp1-3 implementation.)

The idea here is that you can take any two transport stacks each offering
the OSI transport service and bridge them together.  Further, the complexity
of doing so:

	1. Involves no new protocols
	2. Involves only modest (if any) changes at the initiating end
	3. Is no more complex than adding a new transport stack to an
	   implementation--i.e., the bridging quite literally comes for
	   free, all the cost is simply in building the transport stack

Thus, if someone were to define a way of offering the OSI transport service
over, say, SNA.  Then you could drop a transport service bridge over this
and have OSI applications running in an SNA-backbone interwork with OSI
applications running in some other environment, such as the International X.25
network or the Internet.

But, I did not mean to imply in my message that other transport connects had
not been built prior to the transport service bridge.

/mtr