[Info-vax] Rethinking DECNET ?

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2014-09-02 20:26, Dirk Munk wrote:
> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2014-09-02 09:52, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>> JF Mezei wrote:
>>>> (so tunneling DECNET 5 over IP is not the same as having FAL be native
>>>> on IP).
>>>
>>> It is >>not<< tunneling. Decnet 5 uses TCP+IP as transport layer instead
>>> of OSI. Decnet 5 hosts have IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses and BIND DNS
>>> names, not OSI addresses in this case. In fact Decnet 5 is doing exactly
>>> what you're asking from a redesigned Decnet 4 stack, however it is using
>>> only one TCP port, port number 102.
>>
>> You know, this actually *is* tunneling. :-)
>> You have one DECnet stream over TCP/IP. Inside that stream goes DECnet
>> traffic, which might actually be several different streams that are
>> multiplexed on this tunnel. And DECnet have no idea how the two
>> endpoints connect, and how many hops might be along the way in the IP
>> world. It's a tunnel.
>
> And that is exactly the same as with OSI. With IP you address port 102,
> and with OSI you address protocol selector 20 (hex) for DNA (Decnet
> Phase V) traffic, and protocol selector 21 for NSP (Decnet Phase IV)
> traffic.

And? It's still a tunnel.

	Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol