[Info-vax] Rethinking DECNET ?

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <Xm5Nv.107728$Fo3.79127 at fx09.iad>,
	Shark8 <OneWingedShark at gmail.com> writes:
> On 01-Sep-14 06:48, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> That still doesn't change the fact you would be running a TCP/IP
>> stack alongside your new experimental stack if you wanted your
>> machine to interact with the rest of the world.
> 
> That's true and also something that you may, in fact, *not* want: take, 
> for instance, something like the Army's secure network, SIPRnet.
> 
> IMO, it would be a mistake to make TCP/IP networking mandatory -- sure 
> having it set-up and usable by default is all well and good, but let's 
> /not/ start assuming that everyone has/needs an internet connection. 
> (One of my disappointments with certain office-style programs is the 
> assumption and sometimes requirement for network connecting.)
> 
> 
> SIPRnet -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet

SIPRnet uses TCP/IP.  It is not a bunch of secure machines connected to
the INTERNET using an some incompatable protocol, it is a completely
separate and paralel INTERNET for secure communications.  And, yes,
there actually are gateways between it and the NIPRnet (the unsecure
one that connects directly to the INTERNET) that allow unclas traffic
to pass back and forth while protecting against "leakage".

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>