[Info-vax] Rethinking DECNET ?

[Dirk Munk]

Johnny Billquist wrote:
> 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
>
No, it is not a tunnel. There is no principle difference between Decnet 
over OSI and Decnet over IP. The transport layer is different, that's all.

And just like IP, OSI also has its specific non-decnet applications like 
FTAM etc.