rcallon@PARK-STREET.BBN.COM (Ross Callon) (09/09/87)
Yuko; I think we need more experience in actually using the ISO IP before we say which differences are the most important, but here are a few that come to mind. I hope this is a useful start. If you are doing a study of the differences between the DARPA IP and the ISO IP, or looking at implementation issues with the ISO IP, I would be very interested in seeing any result which you may come up with. (1) As Paul mentioned, the ISO uses variable length addresses up to 20 octets, while the DOD uses fixed length 4 octet addresses. The ISO addresses are much more flexible. For example, they may be used to explicitly encode something like an "autonomous system" number, and/or the IEEE 802 link address. I think that the difference in addresses make the ISO IP more appropriate for worldwide use with potentially hundreds of thousands of networks, but make it more costly to run (bigger headers and more processing). (2) The IPs use different checksums. The ISO checksum is computationally more costly, but has a higher probability of detecting errors in which only a small number of bits are changed (i.e., random bit errors as opposed to burst errors). In addition, the ISO checksum can be "turned off" by using all zeroes in the checksum field. (3) The ISO IP doesn't have a source quench. This is because at the time no one who went to the meetings where it was defined believed that source quench was useful. (4) The ISO IP has a small difference in the way that source routing is implemented. The "destination address" field in the ISO IP always contains the true final destination address, rather than the "next hop" source routing address. This means that all of the gateways need to implement source routing for it to work (rather than only those gateways which are actually mentioned in the source route). Since implementation of source routing is optional in the ISO IP, it is unlikely that all gateway vendors will actually implement it. (5) The ISO IP doesn't have an echo packet. The idea was that you could get the same effect by source routing a packet to another gateway and then back to yourself. Unfortunately, as mentioned in (4), this is not likely to work since implementation of source routing is optional. People in ANSI are aware of this problem and thus it is likely to be fixed eventually (I hope). (6) The encoding of many of the fields are different. For example, the fields needed for reassembly (fragment offset, etc..) are only present in the ISO IP if fragmentation is permitted. Similarly, the "security" option had to take into account the fact that the ISO IP is standardized for worldwide use, and therefore needs greater flexibility. Generally, the ISO IP has opted for greater flexibility, and the cost of larger packets and possibly greater cost in parsing the headers. Ross