sjl@amdahl.UUCP.UUCP (07/03/86)
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip Summary: Don't get your knickers in a twist References: <860626161800.4.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM> Reply-To: sjl@amdahl.UUCP (Steve Langdon) Organization: Amdahl Corp, Advanced Systems Planning Keywords: 802 SNAP LSAP ARP protocol_id In article <860626161800.4.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM> DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM (David C. Plummer) over-reacts to a missguided belief that the standards community is not providing a usable alternative to the protocol ID field that was present on Ethernet. The current proposal is that a reserved LSAP will be defined to identify a Network Layer entity that operates a subnetwork access protocol which provides the protocol ID function. The protocol header is five octets; the first three octets identify an organization (using the same values as those used in the first part of the MAC address), and the remaining two octets replace the old protocol ID. > Aren't they also snobbish enough not to need ARP? Don't you just "send > it" and it "magically" gets there? While the OSI network address structure does not suffer from the length limitions of the Arpa IP, an ARP equivalent is seen as useful. For this reason ANSI ASC X3S3.3 has developed a protocol that provides ARP and ICMP redirect type functions. The US submitted this proposal to ISO a year ago and it has been discussed at two ISO TC/97 SC 6 WG2 meetings. We hope that it will be balloted as a Draft Proposal following the meeting of SC 6 this October. X3S3.3 is also working on EGP/GGP type functions for use with the ISO IP. > I just realized what's ticking me off. This whole nonsense is a > parallel with puritanical religions. It does not have any room for > person freedom (e.g., elbow room for new protocols) and it doesn't have > any concept of social responsibility (e.g., maybe <insert favorite hot > topic> isn't such a good idea, but AT THIS TIME IN THIS SOCIETY it is a > necessary evil). Time to nail a grievance to somebody's door? No. It would be much more useful if you would participate in the process of developing standards so that you could make sure that pragmatic considerations are not ignored. Flaming when you do not have accurate information is not going to help solve the problems which do exist. Stephen J. Langdon ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!sjl [ The article above is not an official statement from any organization in the known universe. ]
leong@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (John Leong) (07/08/86)
re : Flaming about Standard Organisations While I was working for Philips (a large Dutch multi-national), I have actively particpated in various standard organisations such as CCITT, EMAC and IEEE. The problem was (and probably still is) that there has been virtually no representative from the IP world on any of those organisations. It is my contention that particpation in the important standard setting bodies is important so as to influence what is being developed as well as being aware of what is going on. However, participation can be very expensive both in term time and money. (I can remembered a series of working group meeting being held in Tokyo, Berlin, Vienna and Zurich : all before the introduction of frequent flyer programs!!!). As a result, only very large companies and government organisations has the resource to participate. I think it is very appropriate for DARPA to fund for the representation of the IP world and make sure that ideas developed here are heard. Otherwise, we will continue having to figure out how to adapt to other people's invention which will most likely to be incompactible and may well be inferior to what we have been doing. Leong
leiner@RIACS.ARPA (07/09/86)
John, I agree with you that it is important to have representation from the IP world on the standard setting bodies. The IAB has been wrestling with the problem, with no satisfactory solution to date. There is a view that says that DARPA should fund such representation. There is also the opposing view. Both have strong arguments in their favor. (The opposing view doesn't say there should not be representation; only that it is not appropriate for DARPA to fund it) Keep tuned. In the meantime, voluntary participation by IP knowledgable people on standards bodies is certainly encouraged. Also, places like DCA and NBS are doing their best, again with limited resources. Barry ----------