karn@JUPITER.BELLCORE.COM (Phil R. Karn) (06/18/87)
This item appears on page 15 of the June 1987 issue of Data Communications. It really made my day. Enjoy. --Phil ============================================ For Own In-House Network, COS Selects TCP/IP That's right. The consortium of vendor and user heavyweights, the Corporation for Open Systems (COS), which exists solely to accelerate the development and deployment of products based on the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) specifications, confirms that its own in-house computer network will use the renegade transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP) set, and not OSI transport and network protocols, at least not initially. "I realize it may look bad, but we *do* plan to migrate [to the OSI protocols]," says Steve Smith, a COS researcher. COS expects its in-house network -- consisting largely of Unix-based Sun Microsystem workstations, Unix-based file servers, and Ethernet connections supplied by Bridge Communications -- to be up and running within the next few weeks. Aware that charges are likely to fly that COS isn't practicing what it preaches when it comes to implementing OSI, COS officials declined further comment. It seems the decision to go with TCP/IP -- even though several COS members, including IBM, Retix, and Touch Communications, for example, now offer OSI network/transport-layer products -- was made reluctantly, because the vendors whose gear COS researchers wanted (Sun, Bridge) do not offer OSI connections. There could, however, be another reason for the interim acceptance of TCP/IP: COS is long overdue in setting up a test facility for checking out OSI network/transport product implementations and certifying their intercompatibility. And selecting an OSI product for use in its own network, which has not passed COS's own certification muster, might have been viewed as an even bigger political gaffe than going with TCP/IP.
melohn@SUN.COM.UUCP (06/18/87)
In article <8706172248.AA21271@jupiter.bellcore.com> karn@JUPITER.BELLCORE.COM (Phil R. Karn) writes: >This item appears on page 15 of the June 1987 issue of Data Communications. >... It seems the decision to go with TCP/IP -- even though >several COS members, including IBM, Retix, and Touch Communications, for >example, now offer OSI network/transport-layer products -- was made >reluctantly, because the vendors whose gear COS researchers wanted (Sun, >Bridge) do not offer OSI connections. The article is amusing, but grossly inaccurate, since Sun currently has a broader offering of OSI products than IBM, Retix, or Touch. Even so, with many protocols yet to be fully defined, OSI as it stands today is not complete enough to replace a fully designed and implemented family of protocols like TCP/IP.
smith@cos.UUCP (06/20/87)
Phil -
Thanks for posting the Data Communications article. I got a good
laugh out of it.
As the "COS researcher" quoted in the article, perhaps I should
respond. For starters, the "quote" is, in fact, a rather clumsy
paraphrase. In general, the author of the article seems to be more
concerned with being clever than with getting his facts right.
("renegade transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP)
set", forsooth!) He is right that we are using TCP/IP now. A
"political gaffe"? No.
The key fact, which I think most everybody will agree on, is that if
you want something *now*, you have to go with what you can get *now*.
There's *always* something better due out in six months. Right *now*,
you can buy off the shelf TCP/IP products from a large number of
vendors that usually work together most of the time. The fact that a
few vendors have "OSI transport/internet" products is a good start,
but you can't make a network with two layers. Without all seven
layers, you simply don't have an OSI network.
Within a year, however, you will be seeing a large number of *real*
OSI products (not "conformant with OSI model" or "IEEE 802.3/Ethernet
compatible" but full seven layer OSI) appearing. There are also a
couple of "full OSI" products available *now*. (Sorry, guys, no free
advertising.)
A couple of other items. This is being posted through the COS
internal network, which has been running for a couple of weeks now
(not "within the next few weeks"). COS officials didn't "decline
further comment", they weren't asked. It seems that the reporter
wasn't listening too well to my discussion on migration strategies.
Our internal network is designed for the easiest possible migration,
as soon as the appropriate OSI software is available.
Ah, well. Such is journalism, especially when the reporter is feeling
sarcastic.
-- Steve
smith@cos.comschoff@NIC.NYSER.NET.UUCP (06/20/87)
>...OSI protocols... >not complete enough to replace a fully designed and implemnted >family of protocols like TCP/IP. AND whose velocity AND acceleration despite all 9 of those pregnant women trying to do the job in one month is LESS than the INTERNET "experienced mother". Marty
PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU (Michael Padlipsky) (06/23/87)
Phil-- My only complaint about the Subj msg is that you neglected to send a copy directly to me; since I fell behind a bit in my TCP-IP skimming, it made my day several days later than it could have. (That you're having to get this via the list is a different story, having to do with the fact that my mailsender couldn't pick your address out of what your mailsender had sent.) The interesting question your item puts me in mind of is whether it accounts for the organizationless status of the author of RFCs 1007/8: do you suppose that "Wayne McCoy" could be a COSsetter who doesn't want the press to know they're not only using our stuff but also asking for our help? (The question is not rhetorical; I really do wonder why there's no organization/netmail address on those RFCs. For that matter, I wonder even more what the basis for 1007's section 1.3's pronunciamento on the "mandatory" applicability of it all is.) Another interesting question, triggered by one of the responses to your item, is whether it's been seven years yet that we've been told next year is THE year, but that one is rhetorical (unless you have a really nifty answer, of course, since it's always fair to answer rhetorical questions if you've got nifty answers to 'em). Who knows, maybe seven IS a lucky number.... cheers, map -------
gross@GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG.UUCP (06/24/87)
map, Wayne McCoy works for NBS. Phill
PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU (Michael Padlipsky) (06/24/87)
Phill-- Thanks for the info. I'll have to assume that anybody who works for NBS wouldn't advertantly violate a standard, so the reason neither of his RFCs contained an organization-indicating line below the name must have something to do with inadvertance rather than a desire to conceal anything. Presumably, the Padlipsky's Law that There's Always One More Typo applies. Now, do you suppose it also applies in 1.3 and what was really meant was "scheduled to become mandatory"? cheers, map -------