bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) (08/26/89)
Has anyone heard whether someone is actively working on software which will encapsulate LocalTalk packets in IP packets? I know a K-box will do this, but we're more interested in a software implementation. Will Apple's internet router do this? Or anything from InfoSphere? I asked several people at MacWorld Boston the encapsulation question, and got replies such as, "Hmmm, that'd be a good idea; I really don't know." Netters? Email would be fine, and I'll summarize if there's interest. I'm also available to sign non-disclosure agreements :-). John Heckendorn /\ BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A 1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarne |()| Berkeley, CA 94709 Phone: (415) 549-2684 | |
Ravinder.Chandhok@CS.CMU.EDU (Rob Chandhok) (08/28/89)
I broached this subject a while ago on info-appletalk, and the only people (company) that seems to be interested is Kinetics, a division of someone, a wholly owned subsidary of someone else. If you can get past their name, the people there are quite knowlegable about the implications of a software based "IPTalk" driver for the Mac. Problems arise when you consider using MacTCP, however, since you have to listen to 256 UDP ports. It would be a lot easier if Apple would let you open listeners for a range of ports, since MacTCP currently has a limit of 64 ports. In addition, I think the actual specs of "IPTalk" should be committed to RFC form, so that the KBOX can talk to IPTalk can talk to CAP, without arguing whose hack is the right hack. I'll help do it, if I get enough committe members. That's the way we did the NIC assigned port numbers for "IPTalk" (the dreaded 200 range). Rob Chandhok
tjh+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Tom Holodnik) (08/28/89)
From: Rob Chandhok <Ravinder.Chandhok@CS.CMU.EDU> To: BMUG <agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!bmug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> Cc: info-appletalk@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: Encapsulated LocalTalk in IP Packets (query) In-Reply-To: Your message of 26 Aug 89 00:41:23 +0000. <1989Aug26.004123.29350@agate.uucp> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 09:04:48 EDT Message-Id: <538.620312688@GNOME.CS.CMU.EDU> Sender: Ravinder.Chandhok@GNOME.CS.CMU.EDU I broached this subject a while ago on info-appletalk, and the only people (company) that seems to be interested is Kinetics, a division of someone, a wholly owned subsidary of someone else. If you can get past their name, the people there are quite knowlegable about the implications of a software based "IPTalk" driver for the Mac. Problems arise when you consider using MacTCP, however, since you have to listen to 256 UDP ports. It would be a lot easier if Apple would let you open listeners for a range of ports, since MacTCP currently has a limit of 64 ports. In addition, I think the actual specs of "IPTalk" should be committed to RFC form, so that the KBOX can talk to IPTalk can talk to CAP, without arguing whose hack is the right hack. I'll help do it, if I get enough committe members. That's the way we did the NIC assigned port numbers for "IPTalk" (the dreaded 200 range). Rob Chandhok
amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker) (08/31/89)
Well, we don't have any commercial interest in AppleTalk-over-IP, but I am personally interested enough that I will volunteer to start a mailing list and start working up an RFC, unless someone at Kinetics would rather do it... If no one else pipes up in the next week or so, I'll set up the list and get things started. -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation amanda@intercon.uu.net | ...!uunet!intercon!amanda
amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker) (09/01/89)
In article <RICH.89Aug31093708@sendai.sendai.ann-arbor.mi.us>, rich@sendai.sendai.ann-arbor.mi.us (K. Richard Magill) writes: > Why is this an issue? From the IP side, this is just another packet. > from the ddp side, IP is just another lap. arp for your ether > addresses, aarp for your appletalk addresses, where's the grief? > assigning a protocol number to ddp-in-IP? > > Conceptually simple. Those parts, yeah. Then we get to things like: - Broadcasts: AppleTalk likes broadcasts, TCP/IP networks don't. It would be nice to have some kind of standardized ZIP to DNS mapping so that every time someone on the Internet brings up the Chooser, the rest of us aren't swamped with directed broadcasts from all of the gateways. - Routing: It's stupid to duplicate connectivity information; mapping RTMP to RIP (or whatever), even if only partially, would be a big win. In short, except for trivial cases (like an IP "tunnel" between two parts of an organization's AppleTalk internet), what we need is more along the lines of a transport-level gateway, rather than simple encapsulation. -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation amanda@intercon.uu.net | ...!uunet!intercon!amanda
liam@cs.qmc.ac.uk (William Roberts) (09/05/89)
I wrote this some while ago and got absolutely NO RESPONSE. Undaunted, I offer it again as a starting point for an RFC for IPTalk, KIP, call it what you will. Things I can currently see wrong with it are: * Doesn't deal with RTMP or ZIP in any way * Doesn't specify the significance (if any) attributed to the UDP port number used by the sender of a packet; I think that the KIP0688 gateway code is doing something with this... * It seems too short :-) I suggest that the person who offered to organise an RFC be the person who combines this and any responses into a workable RFC document; I am about to be snowed under with setting up a new teaching lab (90 A/UX Mac IIcxs) so I won't have the time to do the job properly. William Roberts ARPA: liam@cs.qmc.ac.uk Queen Mary College UUCP: liam@qmc-cs.UUCP AppleLink: UK0087 190 Mile End Road Tel: 01-975 5250 LONDON, E1 4NS, UK Fax: 01-980 6533 -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The KIP Protocol 1.1 The KIP protocol specifies a way of transporting AppleTalk packets, including LAP headers, using UDP/IP packets. It also defines the UDP port numbers to be used on an IP host that wishes to emulate the AppleTalk socket mechanism. 1.2 KIP does not define anything to do with the interpretation of the contents of the AppleTalk packet, nor does it deal with the routing of AppleTalk packets using KIP as a transport mechanism. KIP does not specify how the AppleTalk packets are obtained, nor what happens to them after the UDP/IP protocol has delivered them. 1.3 Every instance of KIP has associated with it an AppleTalk node and network number for the purposes of the AppleTalk protocols transported via KIP. 1.3 KIP does not address the problem of associating AppleTalk node and network numbers to IP hosts and networks, other than to require a mechanism whereby broadcast AppleTalk packets (addressed to node 255) are sent to all known KIP implementations which have the appropriate AppleTalk network number. 1.4 It is suggested that IP broadcast be used to implement AppleTalk broadcast, that a single IP network correspond to a single AppleTalk network and individual IP hosts correspond to individual AppleTalk nodes. This may not be practical or desirable in all circumstances, especially when KIP is used to transport AppleTalk packets through an IP Internet that is being used solely to connect AppleTalk gateways. 1.5 KIP does not address the problem of locating AppleTalk gateways that respond to KIP: it is suggested that KIP implementations be configured at runtime with the IP address of a known gateway that implements KIP. 2. The KIP Encapsulation 2.1 A KIP packet consists of a UDP/IP packet whose data field contains: Bytes 0-2: an AppleTalk LAP header Bytes 3+ : an AppleTalk DDP packet and contents in accordance with the LAP header and the specification of the AppleTalk protocols. A KIP packet may be larger than is strictly necessary to hold the AppleTalk packet, and may use all of the facilities implied by the UDP/IP specification. The LAP-only headers used for contention on the LocalTalk medium are not required by KIP and should not be encapsulated. 2.2 The KIP protocol associates a UDP port number with the available AppleTalk socket numbers, for the convenience of hosts wishing to use UDP/IP port contention to simulate contention for AppleTalk sockets between host programs implementing AppleTalk protocols. 2.3 KIP associates the UDP port numbers as follows: AppleTalk Socket UDP Port 1-127 768 + (AppleTalk socket) 128-254 16384 + (AppleTalk socket) The NIC has registered UDP port numbers 201-208 for AppleTalk services: a conforming KIP implementation may use UDP port numbers 201-327 as the values corresponding to AppleTalk sockets 1-127 by using 200 instead of 768 as the "translation factor". 2.4 Any implementation which uses either port numbers starting from 200 or port numbers staring from 768 is deemed to be a conforming implementation of KIP: if it is necessary to distinguish then the name "KIP" without qualification refers to the use of port numbers in the 768 range. It is expected that implementations of KIP will be able to use either scheme, either by runtime configuration or compile time options. 2.5 KIP implementations are not required to cope with both schemes at once, though they may choose to do so. Packets accepted under one scheme should probably have KIP replies addressed in the same manner. 2.6 KIP implementors are requested (in the tradition of IP) to be generous in what their implementation accepts; in particular if the content of an AppleTalk packet contained inside a KIP packet imply that it is addressed to an AppleTalk socket that does not correspond to the UDP port through which it was received, the KIP implementation should forward it to the appropriate UDP port. -------------------------------------------------------------- -- William Roberts ARPA: liam@cs.qmc.ac.uk Queen Mary College UUCP: liam@qmc-cs.UUCP AppleLink: UK0087 190 Mile End Road Tel: 01-975 5250 LONDON, E1 4NS, UK Fax: 01-980 6533