liam@cs.qmw.ac.uk (William Roberts) (03/01/90)
In article <9002262206.AA06111@jessica.Stanford.EDU> morgan@jessica.stanford.edu writes: > >CAP normally uses AppleTalk-in-UDP encapsulation (sometimes called >IPTalk), which as it stands is only a "non-extended" network. Which >is to say, IPTalk networks don't support multiple net numbers and >multiple zone names per cable. There have been some proposals to >extend IPTalk to have P2 features, but none have seen the light of day >so far. The aspect of IPTalk which works well is mapping AppleTalk socket numbers to UDP port numbers. The bit which works badly if at all is the mapping of AppleTalk node numbers to IP addresses. My impressions of Phase II are that it's a lashup, so I'd not have high expectations of the cross-fertilisation of the two schemes. Is there any mileage in a principled compromise, where the IP addresses used on the cable and the P2 net numbers are directly related by some rule (rather than a lookup table), and the P2 multiple-net cable is required to have only one zone? If we are crystal ball gazing, what chance of avoiding IP Phase 2, if the worldwide Internet really gets going? -- William Roberts ARPA: liam@cs.qmw.ac.uk Queen Mary & Westfield College UUCP: liam@qmw-cs.UUCP Mile End Road AppleLink: UK0087 LONDON, E1 4NS, UK Tel: 01-975 5250 (Fax: 01-980 6533)