|
|
1.1 ! root 1: % -*- LaTeX -*- (really SLiTeX) ! 2: ! 3: \documentstyle[blackandwhite,landscape,oval,pagenumbers,small]{NRslides} ! 4: ! 5: ! 6: \font\xx=cmbx10 ! 7: \font\yy=cmbx7 ! 8: ! 9: \raggedright ! 10: ! 11: \input trademark ! 12: \let\tradeNAMfont=\relax ! 13: \let\tradeORGfont=\relax ! 14: ! 15: \begin{document} ! 16: ! 17: \title {Issues in Transition and Coexistence\\ for TCP/IP to OSI} ! 18: \author {Marshall T.~Rose\\ The Wollongong Group, Inc.} ! 19: \date {November 29, 1988} ! 20: \maketitlepage ! 21: ! 22: ! 23: \begin{bwslide} ! 24: \part* {AGENDA}\bf ! 25: ! 26: \begin{description} ! 27: \item[PART I:] MOTIVATION ! 28: ! 29: \item[PART II:] BACKGROUND ! 30: ! 31: \item[PART III:] PROTOCOL-BASED APPROACHES ! 32: ! 33: \item[PART IV:] RE-DEFINING THE PROBLEM ! 34: ! 35: \item[PART V:] SERVICE-BASED APPROACHES ! 36: ! 37: \item[PART VI:] EXAMPLES ! 38: \end{description} ! 39: \end{bwslide} ! 40: ! 41: ! 42: \begin{bwslide} ! 43: \part {MOTIVATION}\bf ! 44: ! 45: \begin{nrtc} ! 46: \item THERE ARE MANY TCP/IP NETWORKS TODAY; THERE WILL BE MORE TOMORROW ! 47: ! 48: \item BY THE TIME OSI BECOMES A WORTHWHILE OPERATIONAL ALTERNATIVE, ! 49: THERE WILL BE MANY MORE TCP/IP NETWORKS THAN THERE ARE TODAY! ! 50: ! 51: \item PROBLEM: HOW TO PROTECT INSTALLED BASE? ! 52: ! 53: \item PROBLEM: HOW TO TRANSITION GRACEFULLY? ! 54: \end{nrtc} ! 55: \end{bwslide} ! 56: ! 57: ! 58: \begin{bwslide} ! 59: \ctitle {GROWTH OF TCP/IP} ! 60: ! 61: \begin{nrtc} ! 62: \item SALES OF TCP/IP-BASED TECHNOLOGY ! 63: \begin{nrtc} ! 64: \item PARTICULARLY IN EUROPE ! 65: \end{nrtc} ! 66: CONTINUES TO GROW ! 67: ! 68: \item SEVERAL TECHNICAL AND MARKET ASPECTS CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PHENOMENA: ! 69: \begin{nrtc} ! 70: \item SUPERIORITY OF TCP/IP IN LOWER-LAYER CONNECTIVITY ! 71: ! 72: \item MATURITY OF TCP/IP PRODUCTS\\ (e.g., RANGE OF PLATFORMS) ! 73: \end{nrtc} ! 74: ! 75: \item ALTHOUGH OSI WILL DOMINATE, IT DOESN'T YET ! 76: ! 77: \item HENCE, TCP/IP IS BECOMING MORE FIRMLY ENTRENCHED ! 78: \end{nrtc} ! 79: \end{bwslide} ! 80: ! 81: ! 82: \begin{bwslide} ! 83: \ctitle {FEAR AND LOATHING IN THE MARKET} ! 84: ! 85: \begin{nrtc} ! 86: \item F.U.D. IN THE MARKETPLACE: ! 87: \begin{quote}\em ! 88: ``All marketing is fear, uncertainty, and doubt.''\\ \raggedleft ! 89: -- Einar Stefferud, Network Management Associates ! 90: \end{quote} ! 91: ! 92: \item WHAT THE VENDORS SAY: ! 93: \begin{quote}\em ! 94: ``$\ldots$ protection of your investment while assuring a path to an OSI ! 95: future.''\\ \raggedleft ! 96: -- Vendor A ! 97: \end{quote} ! 98: AND ! 99: \begin{quote}\em ! 100: ``$\ldots$ plans for a smooth, painless guaranteed migration to OSI standards ! 101: as they are approved.''\\ \raggedleft ! 102: --Vendor B ! 103: \end{quote} ! 104: ! 105: \item THE SAD TRUTH: ! 106: \begin{quote}\em ! 107: ``You can't win, and you can't quit, but you \underline{can} reduce the ! 108: pain.''\\ \raggedleft ! 109: -- Marshall Rose, The Wollongong Group ! 110: \end{quote} ! 111: ! 112: \end{nrtc} ! 113: \end{bwslide} ! 114: ! 115: ! 116: \begin{bwslide} ! 117: \part {BACKGROUND}\bf ! 118: ! 119: \begin{nrtc} ! 120: \item CONCEPTS ! 121: ! 122: \item TERMINOLOGY ! 123: ! 124: \item HISTORY ! 125: ! 126: \item METRICS FOR COMPARISON ! 127: \end{nrtc} ! 128: \end{bwslide} ! 129: ! 130: ! 131: \begin{bwslide} ! 132: \ctitle {THE FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION} ! 133: ! 134: \begin{nrtc} ! 135: \item TCP/IP IS HERE TODAY, WIDELY INSTALLED, AND USEFUL ! 136: ! 137: \item OSI WILL EVENTUALLY REPLACE TCP/IP AS THE OFF-THE-SHELF TECHNOLOGY FOR ! 138: BUILDING INTEROPERABLE SYSTMS ! 139: ! 140: \item BOTH WILL BE SIMULTANEOUSLY WIDESPREAD FOR QUITE SOME TIME ! 141: \begin{nrtc} ! 142: \item DURING WHICH OSI WILL GAIN DOMINANCE ! 143: \end{nrtc} ! 144: \end{nrtc} ! 145: \end{bwslide} ! 146: ! 147: ! 148: \begin{bwslide} ! 149: \part* {CONCEPTS}\bf ! 150: ! 151: \begin{nrtc} ! 152: \item TRANSITION: ! 153: \begin{nrtc} ! 154: \item TO MOVE FROM ONE PROTOCOL SUITE TO ANOTHER ! 155: \end{nrtc} ! 156: ! 157: \item COEXISTENCE: ! 158: \begin{nrtc} ! 159: \item TO LIVE TOGETHER WITHOUT HOSTILITY OR CONFLICT DESPITE ! 160: DIFFERENCES ! 161: \end{nrtc} ! 162: ! 163: \item MIGRATION: ! 164: \begin{nrtc} ! 165: \item TO MOVE BACK AND FORTH, AS THE SEASONS CHANGE ! 166: \end{nrtc} ! 167: \end{nrtc} ! 168: \end{bwslide} ! 169: ! 170: ! 171: \begin{bwslide} ! 172: \ctitle {MAPPINGS} ! 173: ! 174: \begin{nrtc} ! 175: \item TRANSITION AND COEXISTENCE CAN BE DESCRIBED BY THE MAPPINGS THEY ! 176: REQUIRE ! 177: ! 178: \item SOME MAPPINGS ARE SIMPLE ! 179: \begin{nrtc} ! 180: \item i.e., SYNTACTIC CHANGES ! 181: \end{nrtc} ! 182: ! 183: \item SOME MAPPINGS ARE COMPLEX ! 184: \begin{nrtc} ! 185: \item i.e., SEMANTIC CHANGES ! 186: \end{nrtc} ! 187: ! 188: \item THE MORE COMPLEX THE MAPPING, THE GREATER THE LOSS OF INFORMATION OR ! 189: INTENT ! 190: \end{nrtc} ! 191: \end{bwslide} ! 192: ! 193: ! 194: \begin{bwslide} ! 195: \part* {TERMINOLOGY}\bf ! 196: ! 197: \begin{nrtc} ! 198: \item WE'LL FAVOR OSI TERMINOLOGY, BUT STILL NEED SOME INTERNET (TCP/IP) ! 199: TERMINOLOGY ! 200: ! 201: \item TWO BASIC TERMS ! 202: \begin{nrtc} ! 203: \item GATEWAY: GENERIC TO ANY LEVEL, COMPLEX ! 204: ! 205: \item BRIDGE: GENERIC TO ANY LEVEL, SIMPLE ! 206: \end{nrtc} ! 207: \end{nrtc} ! 208: \end{bwslide} ! 209: ! 210: ! 211: \begin{bwslide} ! 212: \ctitle {SERVICE SEMANTICS} ! 213: ! 214: \begin{nrtc} ! 215: \item STORE-AND-FORWARD ! 216: \begin{nrtc} ! 217: \item SERVICE SEMANTICS CARRIED MULTI-HOP VIA FORWARDERS ! 218: \end{nrtc} ! 219: ! 220: \item END-TO-END ! 221: \begin{nrtc} ! 222: \item SERVICE SEMANTICS CARRIED FROM ORIGINATOR TO RECIPIENT ! 223: ! 224: \item MAY BE SUPPORTED BY AN UNDERYLING STORE-AND-FORWARD SERVICE ! 225: \end{nrtc} ! 226: \end{nrtc} ! 227: \end{bwslide} ! 228: ! 229: ! 230: \begin{bwslide} ! 231: \ctitle {SERVICE SEMANTICS (cont.)} ! 232: ! 233: \vskip.5in ! 234: \diagram[p]{figure3} ! 235: \end{bwslide} ! 236: ! 237: ! 238: \begin{bwslide} ! 239: \ctitle {PROTOCOL SUITE} ! 240: ! 241: \begin{nrtc} ! 242: \item A COLLECTION OF PROTOCOLS RELATED: ! 243: \begin{nrtc} ! 244: \item ADMINISTRATIVELY, BY AN ORGANIZATION\\ (e.g., ISO/IEC); and, ! 245: ! 246: \item PHILOSOPHICALLY, BY A REFERENCE MODEL\\ (e.g., the ARM) ! 247: \end{nrtc} ! 248: ! 249: \item FOR OUR PURPOSES, THERE ARE ONLY TWO: ! 250: \begin{nrtc} ! 251: \item THE OSI SUITE OF PROTOCOLS ! 252: ! 253: \item THE INTERNET SUITE OF PROTOCOLS ! 254: \end{nrtc} ! 255: \end{nrtc} ! 256: \end{bwslide} ! 257: ! 258: ! 259: \begin{bwslide} ! 260: \ctitle {APPLICATIONS} ! 261: ! 262: \begin{nrtc} ! 263: \item APPLICATION CLASS ! 264: \begin{nrtc} ! 265: \item A SET OF APPLICATIONS RELATED TO A PARTICULAR ACTIVITY, ! 266: e.g., FILE TRANSFER, IRREGARDLESS OF PROTOCOL SUITE ! 267: \end{nrtc} ! 268: ! 269: \item APPLICATION INSTANCE ! 270: \begin{nrtc} ! 271: \item A MEMBER OF AN APPLICATION CLASS SPECIFIC TO A PARTICULAR ! 272: PROTOCOL SUITE, e.g., FTAM ! 273: \end{nrtc} ! 274: \end{nrtc} ! 275: \end{bwslide} ! 276: ! 277: ! 278: \begin{bwslide} ! 279: \part* {HISTORY}\bf ! 280: ! 281: \begin{nrtc} ! 282: \item A VERY BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE TWO PROTOCOL SUITES ! 283: ! 284: \item WE'LL ATTEMPT TO TAKE A NON-PARTISAN VIEW (ha!) ! 285: \end{nrtc} ! 286: \end{bwslide} ! 287: ! 288: ! 289: \begin{bwslide} ! 290: \ctitle {INTERNET SUITE} ! 291: ! 292: \begin{nrtc} ! 293: \item SPONSORED BY THE U.S.~DoD ! 294: \begin{nrtc} ! 295: \item GREW OUT OF EARLY (D)ARPA RESEARCH INTO SURVIVABLE NETWORKS ! 296: \end{nrtc} ! 297: BASIS FROM THE ARPANET REFERENCE MODEL (ARM) ! 298: ! 299: \item SPECIFIED IN ``REQUEST FOR COMMENTS'' SERIES (RFCs) AND ! 300: U.S.~MILITARY STANDARDS (MILSTDs) ! 301: ! 302: \item CURRENT GENERATION BASED ON ! 303: \begin{nrtc} ! 304: \item CONNECTION-ORIENTED TRANSPORT SERVICE, ! 305: PROVIDED BY THE TCP; AND, ! 306: ! 307: \item CONNECTIONLESS-MODE NETWORK SERVICE, ! 308: PROVIDED BY THE IP ! 309: \end{nrtc} ! 310: ! 311: \item MAJOR EMPHASIS ON CONNECTIVITY OF DIVERSE SUB-NETWORKS ! 312: \begin{nrtc} ! 313: \item EXCELLENT RESEARCH CONTINUES, TO THIS DAY, ON THESE ISSUES ! 314: \end{nrtc} ! 315: \end{nrtc} ! 316: \end{bwslide} ! 317: ! 318: ! 319: \begin{bwslide} ! 320: \ctitle {INTERNET SUITE (cont.)} ! 321: ! 322: \begin{nrtc} ! 323: \item SEVERAL PRODUCTION APPLICATIONS ! 324: \begin{nrtc} ! 325: \item SIMPLE MAIL TRANSFER PROTOCOL (SMTP) ! 326: ! 327: \item FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL (FTP) ! 328: ! 329: \item TELNET (VIRTUAL TERMINAL PROTOCOL) ! 330: ! 331: \item DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM (DNS) ! 332: \end{nrtc} ! 333: ALL OF WHICH ARE RATHER SIMPLE ! 334: ! 335: \item APPLICATIONS CONTAIN THEIR OWN IMPLICIT SESSION AND PRESENTATION ! 336: MECHANISMS ! 337: ! 338: \item NOT SURPRISING, CONSIDERING THAT THESE APPLICATIONS ARE ALL BASED ON ! 339: 15~YEAR OLD MODELS! ! 340: \end{nrtc} ! 341: \end{bwslide} ! 342: ! 343: ! 344: \begin{bwslide} ! 345: \ctitle {INTERNET PROTOCOLS} ! 346: ! 347: \vskip.5in ! 348: \diagram[p]{figure4} ! 349: \end{bwslide} ! 350: ! 351: ! 352: \begin{bwslide} ! 353: \ctitle {OSI SUITE} ! 354: ! 355: \begin{nrtc} ! 356: \item SPONSORED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ! 357: \begin{nrtc} ! 358: \item IN PARTICULAR THE ISO ! 359: \end{nrtc} ! 360: BASIS FROM THE OSI REFERENCE MODEL (OSIRM) ! 361: ! 362: \item SPECIFIED IN ``STANDARDS'' (ISO/IEC) AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CCITT) ! 363: ! 364: \item BASED ON ! 365: \begin{nrtc} ! 366: \item CONNECTION-ORIENTED TRANSPORT SERVICE, ! 367: PROVIDED BY ONE OF FIVE DIFFERENT TPs; DEPENDING ON ! 368: ! 369: \item THE NETWORK SERVICE AVAILABLE (CONS or CLNS) ! 370: \end{nrtc} ! 371: ! 372: \item DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY THE ``MAJOR'' EMPHASIS ! 373: \end{nrtc} ! 374: \end{bwslide} ! 375: ! 376: ! 377: \begin{bwslide} ! 378: \ctitle {OSI SUITE (cont.)} ! 379: ! 380: \begin{nrtc} ! 381: \item SEVERAL INTERESTING APPLICATIONS ! 382: \begin{nrtc} ! 383: \item MESSAGE HANDLING SYSTEMS (MHS) ! 384: ! 385: \item FILE TRANSFER, ACCESS AND MANAGEMENT (FTAM) ! 386: ! 387: \item VIRTUAL TERMINAL (VT) ! 388: ! 389: \item DIRECTORY SERVICES (DS) ! 390: \end{nrtc} ! 391: ! 392: \item APPLICATIONS EVOLVING QUITE HEAVILY OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS ! 393: ! 394: \item MUCH MORE AMBITIOUS THAN THEIR INTERNET COUNTERPARTS ! 395: \end{nrtc} ! 396: \end{bwslide} ! 397: ! 398: ! 399: \begin{bwslide} ! 400: \ctitle {OSI PROTOCOLS} ! 401: ! 402: \vskip.5in ! 403: \diagram[p]{figure5} ! 404: \end{bwslide} ! 405: ! 406: ! 407: \begin{bwslide} ! 408: \ctitle {A BRIEF COMPARISON} ! 409: ! 410: \begin{nrtc} ! 411: \item NOTE THAT CONCERNS DIFFER ! 412: \begin{nrtc} ! 413: \item NETWORK USERS: APPLICATION-LEVEL FUNCTIONALITY ! 414: ! 415: \item NETWORK ADMINISTRATORS: NETWORK AND TRANSPORT ISSUES ! 416: \end{nrtc} ! 417: ! 418: \item FOR APPLICATIONS, ONCE IMPLEMENTED, THE OSI SUITE IS SUPERIOR ! 419: ! 420: \item FOR NETWORK/TRANSPORT ISSUES, THE INTERNET SUITE IS SUPERIOR: ! 421: \begin{nrtc} ! 422: \item TSDU(PACKET) ORIENTATION PREVENTS USE OF SOPHISTICATED ! 423: CONGESTION COLLAPSE ALGORITHMS ! 424: ! 425: \item SIMPLISTIC RETRANSMISSION ALGORITHMS ! 426: ! 427: \item INAPPROPRIATE END-TO-END CHECKSUM ! 428: \end{nrtc} ! 429: \end{nrtc} ! 430: \end{bwslide} ! 431: ! 432: ! 433: \begin{bwslide} ! 434: \part* {METRICS FOR COMPARISON}\bf ! 435: ! 436: \begin{nrtc} ! 437: \item CAN JUDGE A TRANSITION/COEXISTENCE SCHEME USING DIFFERENT ! 438: CRITERIA ! 439: ! 440: \item THE FOUR WE'LL FOCUS ON ARE ALL SUBJECTIVE; ! 441: \begin{nrtc} ! 442: \item TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS DO NOT EXIST IN A VACUUM ! 443: ! 444: \item THEY MUST BE EVALUATED IN THE CONTEXT OF A TARGET ENVIRONMENT ! 445: \end{nrtc} ! 446: \end{nrtc} ! 447: \end{bwslide} ! 448: ! 449: ! 450: \begin{bwslide} ! 451: \ctitle {METRICS FOR COMPARISON (cont.)} ! 452: ! 453: \begin{nrtc} ! 454: \item PERFORMANCE: ! 455: \begin{nrtc} ! 456: \item THROUGHPUT, LATENCY ! 457: ! 458: \item EFFECT ON OTHER APPLICATIONS ! 459: \end{nrtc} ! 460: ! 461: \item FLEXIBILITY: ! 462: \begin{nrtc} ! 463: \item RANGE OF APPLICABILITY ! 464: \end{nrtc} ! 465: \end{nrtc} ! 466: \end{bwslide} ! 467: ! 468: ! 469: \begin{bwslide} ! 470: \ctitle {METRICS FOR COMPARISON (cont.)} ! 471: ! 472: \begin{nrtc} ! 473: \item TRANSPARENCY: ! 474: \begin{nrtc} ! 475: \item USAGE CONTINUITY ! 476: ! 477: \item SEAMLESS USER INTERFACE ! 478: \end{nrtc} ! 479: ! 480: \item AMENABILITY: ! 481: \begin{nrtc} ! 482: \item MANAGEABILITY ! 483: \end{nrtc} ! 484: \end{nrtc} ! 485: \end{bwslide} ! 486: ! 487: ! 488: \begin{bwslide} ! 489: \ctitle {SEVERAL CANDIDATES} ! 490: ! 491: \begin{nrtc} ! 492: \item PROTOCOL-BASED APPROACHES ! 493: \begin{nrtc} ! 494: \item DUAL STACK ! 495: ! 496: \item APPLICATION GATEWAYS ! 497: ! 498: \item TRANSPORT GATEWAYS ! 499: \end{nrtc} ! 500: ! 501: \item SERVICE-BASED APPROACHES ! 502: \begin{nrtc} ! 503: \item TRANSPORT-SERVICE BRIDGES ! 504: ! 505: \item NETWORK TUNNELS ! 506: \end{nrtc} ! 507: ! 508: \item NONE OF THESE TECHNIQUES ARE SPECIFIC TO THE PROBLEM OF ! 509: \begin{nrtc} ! 510: \item INTERNET $\mapsto$ OSI ! 511: \end{nrtc} ! 512: \end{nrtc} ! 513: \end{bwslide} ! 514: ! 515: ! 516: \begin{bwslide} ! 517: \part {PROTOCOL-BASED APPROACHES}\bf ! 518: ! 519: \begin{nrtc} ! 520: \item THE ``STANDARD'' METHODS USED TO INTERCONNECT DIFFERENT ! 521: PROTOCOL STACKS ! 522: ! 523: \item THESE EMPHASIZE THE PROTOCOLS IN EACH STACK ! 524: ! 525: \item HENCE THEY REINFORCE THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN TCP/IP AND OSI ! 526: \end{nrtc} ! 527: \end{bwslide} ! 528: ! 529: ! 530: \begin{bwslide} ! 531: \part* {DUAL STACK}\bf ! 532: ! 533: \begin{nrtc} ! 534: \item PUT BOTH PROTOCOL SUITES IN ALL HOSTS ! 535: ! 536: \item WORKS WELL, IF YOU CAN CHANGE EVERYTHING ON THE NETWORK ! 537: \begin{quote}\em ! 538: ``Nice work, if you can get it.''\\ \raggedleft ! 539: -- Groucho Marx, Monkey Business, Paramount Pictures (1931) ! 540: \end{quote} ! 541: \end{nrtc} ! 542: \end{bwslide} ! 543: ! 544: ! 545: \begin{bwslide} ! 546: \ctitle {DUAL STACK (cont.)} ! 547: ! 548: \vskip.5in ! 549: \diagram[p]{figure1} ! 550: \end{bwslide} ! 551: ! 552: ! 553: \begin{bwslide} ! 554: \ctitle {TALKING TO UNI-STACK HOSTS} ! 555: ! 556: \begin{nrtc} ! 557: \item QUESTION: HOW TO DECIDE WHICH APPLICATION INSTANCE, ! 558: \begin{nrtc} ! 559: \item APPL-$\alpha$ OR APPL-$\gamma$, ! 560: \end{nrtc} ! 561: TO USE? ! 562: ! 563: \item TWO ANSWERS: ! 564: \begin{nrtc} ! 565: \item DEPEND ON THE USER TO KNOW AND INVOKE THE RIGHT PROGRAM ! 566: ! 567: \item DEVELOP A GENERIC APPLICATION WHICH SUPPORTS BOTH CLASSES ! 568: \end{nrtc} ! 569: ! 570: \item IN THE LATTER CASE, NEED AN UP-TO-DATE DIRECTORY TO DO THIS RELIABLY ! 571: \end{nrtc} ! 572: \end{bwslide} ! 573: ! 574: ! 575: \begin{bwslide} ! 576: \ctitle {GENERIC APPLICATION INSTANCE} ! 577: ! 578: \vskip.5in ! 579: \diagram[p]{figure6} ! 580: \end{bwslide} ! 581: ! 582: ! 583: \begin{bwslide} ! 584: \ctitle {AN IMPLEMENTATION OF DUAL-STACK} ! 585: ! 586: \begin{nrtc} ! 587: \item ENVIRONMENT: \unix/~SVR3 (STREAMS) ! 588: ! 589: \item ACCESS TO LOWER-LAYER PROTOCOLS VIA TRANSPORT LAYER INTERFACE (TLI) ! 590: ! 591: \item NOTE THAT ALTHOUGH TLI PROVIDES A UNIFORM INTERFACE, ! 592: IT DOES NOT PROVIDE A UNIFORM SERVICE: ! 593: \begin{nrtc} ! 594: \item PACKET- vs. STREAM-ORIENTATION ! 595: ! 596: \item GRACEFUL RELEASE ! 597: ! 598: \item EXPEDITED vs. URGENT DATA ! 599: ! 600: \item ADDRESSING ! 601: \end{nrtc} ! 602: \end{nrtc} ! 603: \end{bwslide} ! 604: ! 605: ! 606: \begin{bwslide} ! 607: \ctitle {GENERIC APPLICATION INSTANCE} ! 608: ! 609: \vskip.5in ! 610: \diagram[p]{figure11} ! 611: \end{bwslide} ! 612: ! 613: ! 614: \begin{bwslide} ! 615: \ctitle {SCORECARD} ! 616: ! 617: \begin{nrtc} ! 618: \item PERFORMANCE: NO DEGRADATION ! 619: ! 620: \item FLEXIBILITY: GOOD ! 621: ! 622: \item TRANSPARENCY: ! 623: \begin{nrtc} ! 624: \item ASSUMING REMOTE SYSTEM SUPPORTS AT LEAST ONE OF THE PROTOCOL ! 625: STACKS, THEN HIGH TRANSPARENCY BY USING COMMON SERVICE ! 626: INTERFACE ! 627: \end{nrtc} ! 628: ! 629: \item AMENABILITY: ! 630: \begin{nrtc} ! 631: \item BOTH END- AND INTERMEDIATE-SYSTEMS MUST RUN BOTH PROTOCOLS ! 632: ! 633: \item INTRODUCES ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS AS THERE ARE NOW TWO ! 634: LOGICAL NETWORKS ! 635: \begin{nrtc} ! 636: \item MANAGEMENT OF BOTH \underline{PLUS} CONTENTION BETWEEN THEM ! 637: \end{nrtc} ! 638: \end{nrtc} ! 639: \end{nrtc} ! 640: \end{bwslide} ! 641: ! 642: ! 643: \begin{bwslide} ! 644: \part* {APPLICATION GATEWAYS}\bf ! 645: ! 646: \begin{nrtc} ! 647: \item A WELL-KNOWN, BUT LITTLE-UNDERSTOOD TECHNOLOGY ! 648: \begin{nrtc} ! 649: \item USED IN MESSAGE HANDLING QUITE A BIT ! 650: \end{nrtc} ! 651: ! 652: \item MOST ARE QUITE TERRIBLE ! 653: \begin{quote}\em ! 654: ``Sometimes when you try to turn an apple into an orange you get back a ! 655: lemon.''\\ \raggedleft ! 656: -- Michael Padlipsky, The Elements of Networking Style (1985) ! 657: \end{quote} ! 658: \end{nrtc} ! 659: \end{bwslide} ! 660: ! 661: ! 662: \begin{bwslide} ! 663: \ctitle {APPLICATION GATEWAYS (cont.)} ! 664: ! 665: \vskip.5in ! 666: \diagram[p]{figure2} ! 667: \end{bwslide} ! 668: ! 669: ! 670: \begin{bwslide} ! 671: \ctitle {IMPERFECT MAPPINGS} ! 672: ! 673: \begin{nrtc} ! 674: \item BECAUSE THEY ARE AT THE HIGHEST LAYER IN THE STACK, ! 675: APPLICATION GATEWAYS TEND TO PERFORM SEMANTIC MAPPINGS ! 676: ! 677: \item THESE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY A LOSS OF INFORMATION ! 678: ! 679: \item SOMETIMES THE LOSS IS ONLY ANNOYING ! 680: \begin{nrtc} ! 681: \item e.g., ``FUNNY LOOKING'' MAIL ADDRESSES ! 682: \end{nrtc} ! 683: ! 684: \item SOMETIMES THE LOSS IS CATASTROPHIC ! 685: \begin{nrtc} ! 686: \item e.g., ROUTING LOOPS ! 687: \end{nrtc} ! 688: \end{nrtc} ! 689: \end{bwslide} ! 690: ! 691: ! 692: \begin{bwslide} ! 693: \ctitle {AN IMPLEMENATION OF APPLICATION-GATEWAY} ! 694: ! 695: \begin{nrtc} ! 696: \item TWO KINDS OF IMPLEMENATIONS ! 697: ! 698: \item STAGING (TRUE STORE-AND-FORWARD): ! 699: \begin{nrtc} ! 700: \item TOP-LEVEL PROTOCOL TRANSACTIONS ARE GROUPED AT THE GATEWAY ! 701: ! 702: \item REQUIRES LOCAL STORAGE, BUT MAY PERMIT BETTER MAPPINGS ! 703: \end{nrtc} ! 704: ! 705: \item IN-SITU (VIRTUAL END-TO-END): ! 706: \begin{nrtc} ! 707: \item NO PROTOCOL TRANSACTIONS ARE GROUPED ! 708: ! 709: \item MAPPINGS ARE ``ON THE FLY''\\ (AND PERHAPS LESS PRECISE) ! 710: ! 711: \item END-TO-END RESPONSE IS FASTER ! 712: \end{nrtc} ! 713: \end{nrtc} ! 714: \end{bwslide} ! 715: ! 716: ! 717: \begin{bwslide} ! 718: \ctitle {A STAGING IMPLEMENTATION} ! 719: ! 720: \vskip.5in ! 721: \diagram[p]{figure12} ! 722: \end{bwslide} ! 723: ! 724: ! 725: \begin{bwslide} ! 726: \ctitle {AN IN-SITU IMPLEMENTATION} ! 727: ! 728: \vskip.5in ! 729: \diagram[p]{figure13} ! 730: \end{bwslide} ! 731: ! 732: ! 733: \begin{bwslide} ! 734: \ctitle {SCORECARD} ! 735: ! 736: \begin{nrtc} ! 737: \item PERFORMANCE: USUALLY POOR, BUT ACCEPTABLE FOR STORE-AND-FORWARD ! 738: APPLICATIONS ! 739: \begin{nrtc} ! 740: \item TYPICALLY ALSO INTRODUCES ADDITIONAL NETWORK TRAFFIC ! 741: \end{nrtc} ! 742: ! 743: \item FLEXIBILITY: NONE; EACH A-GWY IS A SPECIAL-PURPOSE SOFTWARE BOX ! 744: ! 745: \item TRANSPARENCY: ! 746: \begin{nrtc} ! 747: \item TO SERVICE: OFTEN LOSES SIGNIFICANT FUNCTIONALITY ! 748: ! 749: \item TO USERS: POSSIBLE, BUT NOT LIKELY (e.g., IN AN FTAM/FTP A-GWY, ! 750: USERS EMBED HOSTNAMES IN FILENAMES) ! 751: \end{nrtc} ! 752: ! 753: \item AMENABILITY: ! 754: \begin{nrtc} ! 755: \item REQUIRES NO END-SYSTEM MODIFICATION ! 756: ! 757: \item MAY INTRODUCE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS ! 758: \end{nrtc} ! 759: \end{nrtc} ! 760: \end{bwslide} ! 761: ! 762: ! 763: \begin{bwslide} ! 764: \part* {TRANSPORT GATEWAYS}\bf ! 765: ! 766: \begin{nrtc} ! 767: \item IDEA: GATEWAY AT THE TRANSPORT LAYER SO AS TO AVOID NEEDING ! 768: MULTIPLE APPLICATION GATEWAYS ! 769: \begin{quote}\em ! 770: ``We could do it, but it would be wrong.''\\ \raggedleft ! 771: -- Richard Nixon ! 772: \end{quote} ! 773: ! 774: \item ALTHOUGH THE OSI (TP4) AND INTERNET (TCP) TRANSPORT PROTOCOLS DIFFER, ! 775: THE SERVICE IS QUITE SIMILAR ! 776: ! 777: \item HENCE, IT IS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE TO PERFORM THE MAPPINGS ! 778: \begin{nrtc} ! 779: \item (ALTHOUGH IT'S A LOT OF HARD WORK) ! 780: \end{nrtc} ! 781: \end{nrtc} ! 782: \end{bwslide} ! 783: ! 784: ! 785: \begin{bwslide} ! 786: \ctitle {TRANSPORT GATEWAYS (cont.)} ! 787: ! 788: \vskip.5in ! 789: \diagram[p]{figure14} ! 790: \end{bwslide} ! 791: ! 792: ! 793: \begin{bwslide} ! 794: \ctitle {THE OBVIOUS QUESTION} ! 795: ! 796: \begin{nrtc} ! 797: \item WHAT APPLICATION DO YOU RUN WHEN USING THIS? ! 798: \begin{nrtc} ! 799: \item CAN'T RUN INTERNET APPLICATIONS IN THE OSI NETWORK, ! 800: SINCE THE TRANSPORT GATEWAY YIELDS OSI TRANSPORT SEMANTICS ! 801: ! 802: \item CAN'T RUN OSI APPLICATIONS IN THE INTERNET NETWORK, ! 803: SINCE THE TRANSPORT GATEWAY YIELDS INTERNET TRANSPORT SEMANTICS ! 804: \end{nrtc} ! 805: ! 806: \item THIS APPROACH FAILS BECAUSE IT PRESENTS DIFFERENT SERVICE SEMANTICS ! 807: IN EACH NETWORK ! 808: \end{nrtc} ! 809: \end{bwslide} ! 810: ! 811: ! 812: \begin{bwslide} ! 813: \part {RE-DEFINING THE PROBLEM}\bf ! 814: ! 815: \begin{nrtc} ! 816: \item BY THE TIME OSI-BASED NETWORKS ARE TRULY WIDESPREAD, ! 817: TCP/IP-BASED NETWORKS WILL ALREADY OFFER A MIX OF SERVICES: ! 818: \begin{nrtc} ! 819: \item SUCH AS FTAM AND MHS, IN ADDITION TO FTP AND SMTP ! 820: \end{nrtc} ! 821: ! 822: \item IN OTHER WORDS, THE TRANSITION TO OSI BEGINS WITH NEW APPLICATIONS ON ! 823: HOSTS AND NO CHANGES TO THE NETWORK ! 824: \end{nrtc} ! 825: \end{bwslide} ! 826: ! 827: ! 828: \begin{bwslide} ! 829: \ctitle {WOULD THIS REALLY HAPPEN?} ! 830: ! 831: \begin{nrtc} ! 832: \item RECALL THAT USERS ARE INTERESTED IN \underline{SERVICES} NOT ! 833: \underline{PROTOCOLS} ! 834: ! 835: \item THE OSI APPLICATIONS ARE MUCH RICHER THAN THEIR INTERNET COUNTERPARTS ! 836: ! 837: \item IN CONTRAST, AT THE LOWER-LAYERS THE INTERNET SUITE ``WORKS BETTER'' ! 838: \begin{nrtc} ! 839: \item AS SUCH, IT IS UNLIKELY TO BE REPLACED BY THE OSI LOWER-LAYERS ! 840: FOR QUITE SOME TIME ! 841: \end{nrtc} ! 842: \end{nrtc} ! 843: \end{bwslide} ! 844: ! 845: ! 846: \begin{bwslide} ! 847: \ctitle {ONLY ONE LITTLE PROBLEM$\ldots$} ! 848: ! 849: \begin{nrtc} ! 850: \item HOW TO RUN THE OSI UPPER-LAYERS IN A TCP/IP-BASED NETWORK? ! 851: ! 852: \item A SOLUTION IS OFFERED BY LAYERING ! 853: \begin{nrtc} ! 854: \item THE OSI TRANSPORT \underline{SERVICE} IS VERY SIMPLE ! 855: ! 856: \item CAN WE PROVIDE AN EMULATION OF THAT SERVICE USING TCP? ! 857: \end{nrtc} ! 858: \end{nrtc} ! 859: \end{bwslide} ! 860: ! 861: ! 862: \begin{bwslide} ! 863: \ctitle {SERVICE EMULATOR AT TRANSPORT} ! 864: ! 865: \vskip.5in ! 866: \diagram[p]{figure7} ! 867: \end{bwslide} ! 868: ! 869: ! 870: \begin{bwslide} ! 871: \ctitle {THE OSI TRANSPORT SERVICE} ! 872: ! 873: \begin{nrtc} ! 874: \item ALTHOUGH THE SERVICE IS VERY SIMPLE, THERE ARE ACTUALLY FIVE DIFFERENT ! 875: ISO PROTOCOLS WHICH CAN BE USED (TP0$\ldots$TP4) ! 876: ! 877: \item PROTOCOLS CAN BE DIVIDED INTO TWO CLASSES, BASED ON THE UNDERLYING ! 878: NETWORK SERVICE ! 879: \begin{nrtc} ! 880: \item A CONNECTION-ORIENTED NETWORK SERVICE (CONS), e.g., X.25 ! 881: ! 882: ! 883: \item A CONNECTIONLESS-MODE NETWORK SERVICE (CLNS), e.g., CLNP ! 884: \end{nrtc} ! 885: \end{nrtc} ! 886: \end{bwslide} ! 887: ! 888: ! 889: \begin{bwslide} ! 890: \ctitle {OSI TRANSPORT SERVICES\\ ON TOP OF THE DoD TCP} ! 891: ! 892: \begin{nrtc} ! 893: \item IDEA: TAKE THE SIMPLEST PROTOCOL (TP0) AND DEFINE A MAPPING ONTO ! 894: THE DoD TCP ! 895: ! 896: \item{} [RFC983], PUBLISHED IN APRIL OF 1986, WAS A FIRST ATTEMPT AT THIS ! 897: ! 898: \item TWO VERSIONS AND 13 MONTHS LATER, [RFC1006] GOT IT RIGHT, TELLING ! 899: ``HOW TO SPEAK TP0 OVER THE TCP'' ! 900: ! 901: \item NOTE: THIS APPROACH IS NOT UNIQUE TO TCP/IP-BASED NETWORKS! ! 902: \end{nrtc} ! 903: \end{bwslide} ! 904: ! 905: ! 906: \begin{bwslide} ! 907: \ctitle {OSI TRANSPORT SERVICES\\ ON TOP OF THE DoD TCP (cont.)} ! 908: ! 909: \vskip.25in ! 910: \diagram[p]{figure8} ! 911: \end{bwslide} ! 912: ! 913: ! 914: \begin{bwslide} ! 915: \part {SERVICE-BASED APPROACHES}\bf ! 916: ! 917: \begin{nrtc} ! 918: \item BACK TO OUR PREDICATION: ! 919: \begin{nrtc} ! 920: \item TCP/IP-BASED NETWORKS WILL OFFER A MIX OF SERVICES ! 921: \end{nrtc} ! 922: \end{nrtc} ! 923: \end{bwslide} ! 924: ! 925: ! 926: \begin{bwslide} ! 927: \ctitle {OBSERVATION} ! 928: ! 929: \begin{nrtc} ! 930: \item GIVEN THE ABOVE ASSUMPTION, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT: ! 931: \begin{nrtc} ! 932: \item WE HAVE TWO COMMUNITIES USING THE SAME APPLICATIONS ! 933: (OSI), AND ! 934: ! 935: \item ONLY THE UNDERLYING ``TS-STACK'' WILL DIFFER BETWEEN THE TWO: ! 936: \begin{nrtc} ! 937: \item IN THE OSI COMMUNITY: TP4/CLNP/$\ldots$ ! 938: ! 939: \item IN THE TCP COMMUNITY: [RFC1006]/TCP/IP/$\ldots$ ! 940: \end{nrtc} ! 941: \end{nrtc} ! 942: ! 943: \item THIS LEADS US TO POSTULATE AN INTERESTING COEXISTENCE ! 944: STRATEGY: ! 945: \begin{nrtc} ! 946: \item LET'S RUN OSI APPLICATIONS, END-TO-END, BETWEEN THE TWO ! 947: \end{nrtc} ! 948: ! 949: \item IN A SENSE, THIS IS A HYBRID OF THE TWO PREVIOUS APPROACHES, ! 950: INTENDED TO MINIMIZE THE DISADVANTAGES OF EACH ! 951: \begin{nrtc} ! 952: \item SAME APPLICATION PROTOCOL,\\ ! 953: BUT DIFFERENT UNDERYLING LAYERS ! 954: \end{nrtc} ! 955: \end{nrtc} ! 956: \end{bwslide} ! 957: ! 958: ! 959: \begin{bwslide} ! 960: \part* {TRANSPORT-SERVICE BRIDGES}\bf ! 961: ! 962: \begin{nrtc} ! 963: \item INTRODUCE A TRANSPORT ENTITY CALLED THE ``TS-BRIDGE'' ! 964: \begin{quote}\em ! 965: ``Users are interested in services, not protocols.''\\ \raggedleft ! 966: -- Marshall Rose, The Wollongong Group ! 967: \end{quote} ! 968: ! 969: \item THE TS-BRIDGE ``COPIES'' SERVICE PRIMITIVES FROM ONE COMMUNITY TO THE ! 970: OTHER, e.g.: ! 971: \begin{nrtc} ! 972: \item UPON RECEIVING A T-CONNECT.INDICATION PRIMITIVE FROM ONE ! 973: TS-STACK, ! 974: ! 975: \item IT ISSUES A T-CONNECT.REQUEST PRIMITIVE TO THE OTHER TS-STACK ! 976: \end{nrtc} ! 977: \end{nrtc} ! 978: \end{bwslide} ! 979: ! 980: ! 981: \begin{bwslide} ! 982: \ctitle {TRANSPORT-SERVICE BRIDGES (cont.)} ! 983: ! 984: \vskip.5in ! 985: \diagram[p]{figure9} ! 986: \end{bwslide} ! 987: ! 988: ! 989: \begin{bwslide} ! 990: \ctitle {THE TS-BRIDGE AND THE OSI MODEL} ! 991: ! 992: \begin{nrtc} ! 993: \item THE TS-BRIDGE IS A LEVEL-FOUR ROUTER ! 994: ! 995: \item POTENTIAL PROBLEMS: ! 996: \begin{nrtc} ! 997: \item THE TS-BRIDGE MAINTAINS STATE AS TO THE EXISTING CONNECTIONS ! 998: ! 999: \item TWO CHECKSUMS, AND NEITHER REALLY END-TO-END ! 1000: ! 1001: \item \underline{MAY} THWART SOPHISTICATED BACK-PRESSURE TECHNIQUES ! 1002: \end{nrtc} ! 1003: \end{nrtc} ! 1004: \end{bwslide} ! 1005: ! 1006: ! 1007: \begin{bwslide} ! 1008: \ctitle {TRANSPARENT USE OF TS-BRIDGES} ! 1009: ! 1010: \begin{nrtc} ! 1011: \item BY JUDICIOUS USE OF DIRECTORY SERVICES, SELECTION OF THE ! 1012: TS-BRIDGE CAN BE MADE TRANSPARENT ON BOTH ENDPOINTS ! 1013: ! 1014: \item CONSIDER A ``TYPICAL'' PRESENTATION ADDRESS: ! 1015: \[\begin{tabular}{ll} ! 1016: network address:& CLNP 470005001700$\ldots$5301\\ ! 1017: transport selector:& 1\\ ! 1018: session selector:& ``FTAM''\\ ! 1019: presentation selector:& null ! 1020: \end{tabular}\] ! 1021: ! 1022: \item A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ENTRY IS RETURNED FOR HOSTS IN THE ! 1023: OPPOSITE COMMUNITY: ! 1024: \[\begin{tabular}{ll} ! 1025: network address:& ts-bridge's network address\\ ! 1026: transport selector:& \begin{tabular}[t]{ll} ! 1027: network address:& ! 1028: CLNP 47 $\ldots$\\ ! 1029: transport selector:& 1 ! 1030: \end{tabular}\\ ! 1031: session selector:& ``FTAM''\\ ! 1032: presentation selector:& null ! 1033: \end{tabular}\] ! 1034: \end{nrtc} ! 1035: \end{bwslide} ! 1036: ! 1037: ! 1038: \begin{bwslide} ! 1039: \ctitle {ANOTHER PROBLEM SOLVED:\\ ISO CONS versus CLNS} ! 1040: ! 1041: \begin{nrtc} ! 1042: \item IN GENERAL, THE TS-BRIDGE SHOWS HOW TO PERFORM ! 1043: ``IMPEDENCE MATCHING'' BETWEEN TWO PROTOCOLS WHICH OFFER THE ! 1044: SAME SERVICE INTERFACE, e.g., OUR USE IS: ! 1045: \begin{nrtc} ! 1046: \item PROTOCOLS: TP4/CLNP AND TP0/TCP ! 1047: ! 1048: \item SERVICE: OSI TRANSPORT SERVICE ! 1049: \end{nrtc} ! 1050: ! 1051: \item THIS IS SUSPICIOUSLY SIMILAR TO THE ISO TP4/CLNS vs. TP0/CONS PROBLEM: ! 1052: \begin{nrtc} ! 1053: \item PROTOCOLS: TP4/CLNP AND TP0/X.25 ! 1054: ! 1055: \item SERVICE: OSI TRANSPORT SERVICE ! 1056: \end{nrtc} ! 1057: ! 1058: \item THE TS-BRIDGE WILL ALSO WORK IN THIS ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT ! 1059: MEANINGFUL LOSS OF GENERALITY: ! 1060: \begin{nrtc} ! 1061: \item EXPEDITED DATA IS NEGOTIATED AWAY, AND ! 1062: ! 1063: \item INITIAL USER DATA RESULTS IN DISCONNECT ! 1064: \end{nrtc} ! 1065: \end{nrtc} ! 1066: \end{bwslide} ! 1067: ! 1068: ! 1069: \begin{bwslide} ! 1070: \ctitle {AN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TS-BRIDGE} ! 1071: ! 1072: \begin{nrtc} ! 1073: \item AT UNIFORUM IN FEBRUARY, 1988, THE ! 1074: \begin{nrtc} ! 1075: \item TP4/CLNP to TP0/TCP ! 1076: \end{nrtc} ! 1077: ``IMPEDENCE MATCHING'' WAS DEMONSTRATED ! 1078: ! 1079: \item CURRENTLY, ALL THREE TS-STACKS ! 1080: \begin{nrtc} ! 1081: \item TP4/CLNP, TP0/X.25, TP0/TCP ! 1082: \end{nrtc} ! 1083: ARE BEING BRIDGED (ON A SINGLE HOST) ! 1084: \end{nrtc} ! 1085: \end{bwslide} ! 1086: ! 1087: ! 1088: \begin{bwslide} ! 1089: \ctitle {SCORECARD} ! 1090: ! 1091: \begin{nrtc} ! 1092: \item PERFORMANCE: FAIR; WHEN TS-BRIDGE IS MADE INTO A KERNEL-RESIDENT ! 1093: STREAMS MODULE IT SHOULD IMPROVE DRAMATICALLY ! 1094: ! 1095: \item FLEXIBILITY: HIGH; INDEPENDENT OF ANY APPLICATION ! 1096: ! 1097: \item TRANSPARENCY: TOTAL ! 1098: ! 1099: \item AMENABILITY: ! 1100: \begin{nrtc} ! 1101: \item TCP END-SYSTEMS MUST RUN ``NEW'' PROTOCOLS ! 1102: \begin{nrtc} ! 1103: \item BUT, NO MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED TO END-SYSTEM KERNELS ! 1104: \end{nrtc} ! 1105: ! 1106: \item MAY INTRODUCE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS (WHICH SHOULD BE SOLVED ! 1107: DYNAMICALLY BY DIRECTORY SERVICES) ! 1108: \end{nrtc} ! 1109: \end{nrtc} ! 1110: \end{bwslide} ! 1111: ! 1112: ! 1113: \begin{bwslide} ! 1114: \part* {NETWORK TUNNELS}\bf ! 1115: ! 1116: \begin{nrtc} ! 1117: \item IDEA: ENCAPSULATE CLNP INSIDE OF IP, TREATING IP AS SIMPLY A DATA LINK ! 1118: PROTOCOL ! 1119: \begin{quote}\em ! 1120: ``Encapsulation complies with the layering concept, but violates the notion ! 1121: of absolute levels.''\\ \raggedleft ! 1122: -- Danny Cohen and Jon Postel, ``The ISO Reference Model and Other Protocol ! 1123: Architectures'' (1983) ! 1124: \end{quote} ! 1125: ! 1126: \item NS-TUNNEL PERFORMS AS A ROUTER, REMOVING ONE DATA LINK HEADER AND ! 1127: ADDING ANOTHER ! 1128: \end{nrtc} ! 1129: \end{bwslide} ! 1130: ! 1131: ! 1132: \begin{bwslide} ! 1133: \ctitle {TUNNELING} ! 1134: ! 1135: \vskip.5in ! 1136: \diagram[p]{figure18} ! 1137: \end{bwslide} ! 1138: ! 1139: ! 1140: \begin{bwslide} ! 1141: \ctitle {NETWORK TUNNELS} ! 1142: ! 1143: \vskip.5in ! 1144: \diagram[p]{figure10} ! 1145: \end{bwslide} ! 1146: ! 1147: ! 1148: \begin{bwslide} ! 1149: \ctitle {INTERESTING FEATURES} ! 1150: ! 1151: \begin{nrtc} ! 1152: \item NO STATE MAINTAINED BY NS-TUNNEL ! 1153: ! 1154: \item A TRUE END-TO-END CHECKSUM ! 1155: \end{nrtc} ! 1156: \end{bwslide} ! 1157: ! 1158: ! 1159: \begin{bwslide} ! 1160: \ctitle {POTENTIAL PROBLEMS} ! 1161: ! 1162: \begin{nrtc} ! 1163: \item REQUIRES COMMON HIGHER-LEVEL PROTOCOLS (TRANSPORT AND ABOVE) ON BOTH ! 1164: END-SYSTEMS, BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE ALL INTERVENING ROUTERS TO USE THE ! 1165: SAME NETWORK PROTOCOL ! 1166: ! 1167: \item THE TCP END-SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION CHOICES ARE SIMILAR TO NETBIOS OVER ! 1168: TCP [RFC1001/1002] ! 1169: \end{nrtc} ! 1170: \end{bwslide} ! 1171: ! 1172: ! 1173: \begin{bwslide} ! 1174: \ctitle {AN IMPLEMENATION OF AN NS-TUNNEL} ! 1175: ! 1176: \begin{nrtc} ! 1177: \item HAVEN'T SEE ANY YET ! 1178: ! 1179: \item REALLY NEED A LOT OF CLNP-BASED NETWORKS BEFORE THIS IS OF USE ! 1180: ! 1181: \item THIS WILL HAPPEN AT THE END OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD ! 1182: \end{nrtc} ! 1183: \end{bwslide} ! 1184: ! 1185: ! 1186: \begin{bwslide} ! 1187: \ctitle {SCORECARD} ! 1188: ! 1189: \begin{nrtc} ! 1190: \item PERFORMANCE: NO WORSE THAN TYPICAL CLNP-ROUTER (AND PROBABLY A LOT ! 1191: BETTER TOO!) ! 1192: ! 1193: \item FLEXIBILITY: HIGH (INDEPENDENT OF ANY APPLICATION) ! 1194: ! 1195: \item TRANSPARENCY: TOTAL ! 1196: ! 1197: \item AMENABILITY: TCP END-SYSTEMS MUST RUN BOTH TRANSPORT PROTOCOLS ! 1198: \end{nrtc} ! 1199: \end{bwslide} ! 1200: ! 1201: ! 1202: \begin{bwslide} ! 1203: \part {EXAMPLES}\bf ! 1204: ! 1205: \begin{nrtc} ! 1206: \item DoD OSI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ! 1207: ! 1208: \item GENERIC EXAMPLE ! 1209: ! 1210: \item CONCLUSIONS ! 1211: \end{nrtc} ! 1212: \end{bwslide} ! 1213: ! 1214: ! 1215: \begin{bwslide} ! 1216: \part* {DoD OSI\\ IMPLEMENTATION PLAN}\bf ! 1217: ! 1218: \begin{nrtc} ! 1219: \item IMPLEMENT CAPABILITY TO USE OSI IN DoD INTERNETWORK ENVIRONMENT ! 1220: \begin{nrtc} ! 1221: \item OSI-POSIX PROJECT ! 1222: \end{nrtc} ! 1223: ! 1224: \item PROVIDE THE CAPABILITY FOR DoD AND OSI PROTOCOLS TO INTEROPERATE ! 1225: \begin{nrtc} ! 1226: \item FTAM-FTP GATEWAY ! 1227: ! 1228: \item MHS-SMTP GATEWAY ! 1229: \end{nrtc} ! 1230: \end{nrtc} ! 1231: \end{bwslide} ! 1232: ! 1233: ! 1234: \begin{bwslide} ! 1235: \ctitle {OSI-POSIX PROJECT} ! 1236: ! 1237: \begin{nrtc} ! 1238: \item GOAL: ACCELLERATE THE UBIQUITY OF OSI ! 1239: ! 1240: \item APPROACH: OPENLY AVAILABLE, COMPLETE OSI IMPLEMENTATION FOR NEXT MAJOR ! 1241: RELEASE OF BERKELEY \unix/ ! 1242: ! 1243: \item FOR MORE DETAILS: ! 1244: \begin{quote} ! 1245: OSI PROTOCOLS WITHIN AN OPENLY AVAILABLE, POSIX-CONFORMANT, BERKELEY UNIX ! 1246: ENVIRONMENT ! 1247: \end{quote} ! 1248: APPEARING IN ConneXions, OCTOBER, 1988 ! 1249: \end{nrtc} ! 1250: \end{bwslide} ! 1251: ! 1252: ! 1253: \begin{bwslide} ! 1254: \diagram[p]{figure15} ! 1255: \end{bwslide} ! 1256: ! 1257: ! 1258: \begin{bwslide} ! 1259: \diagram[p]{figure16} ! 1260: \end{bwslide} ! 1261: ! 1262: ! 1263: \begin{bwslide} ! 1264: \part* {GENERIC EXAMPLE}\bf ! 1265: ! 1266: \begin{nrtc} ! 1267: \item TWO PRONGS: ! 1268: \begin{nrtc} ! 1269: \item FAVOR USE OF OSI APPLICATIONS OVER TCP ON LAN MESH ! 1270: ! 1271: \item LOCATE APPLICATION GATEWAYS AND A TS-BRIDGE ON ALL NODES ! 1272: WITH WAN ATTACHMENETS ! 1273: \end{nrtc} ! 1274: ! 1275: \item AWAIT OSI LOWER-LAYERS TO BECOME COMPETITIVE ! 1276: \end{nrtc} ! 1277: \end{bwslide} ! 1278: ! 1279: ! 1280: \begin{bwslide} ! 1281: \ctitle {GENERIC EXAMPLE (cont.)} ! 1282: ! 1283: \begin{nrtc} ! 1284: \item EACH ATTACHMENT LOCUS SHOULD SUPPORT COEXISTENCE SERVICES ! 1285: ! 1286: \item IF RESOURCES PERMIT, SELECT ONE OTHER SYSTEM TO SUPPORT THESE ! 1287: SERVICES FOR USE BY LOCAL UNI-STACK HOSTS ! 1288: ! 1289: \item THIS ``COVERS ALL BASES'' BY HANDLING ALL POSSIBLE OSI COMBINATIONS ! 1290: WITH A BIT OF EXTRA REDUNDANCY ! 1291: ! 1292: \item MIGHT REQUIRE A BIT OF SOPHISTICATED USE FROM THE DIRECTORY ! 1293: \end{nrtc} ! 1294: \end{bwslide} ! 1295: ! 1296: ! 1297: \begin{bwslide} ! 1298: \ctitle {A LAN OF MANY COLORS} ! 1299: ! 1300: \vskip.5in ! 1301: \diagram[p]{figure17} ! 1302: \end{bwslide} ! 1303: ! 1304: ! 1305: \begin{bwslide} ! 1306: \part* {CONCLUSIONS}\bf ! 1307: ! 1308: \begin{quote}\em ! 1309: ``Optimality differs according to context.''\\ \raggedleft ! 1310: -- Michael Padlipsky, The Elements of Networking Style (1985) ! 1311: \end{quote} ! 1312: \end{bwslide} ! 1313: ! 1314: ! 1315: \begin{bwslide} ! 1316: \ctitle {CONCLUSIONS (cont.)} ! 1317: ! 1318: \begin{nrtc} ! 1319: \item TCP/IP-BASED NETWORKS WILL OFFER OSI APPLICATIONS ! 1320: ! 1321: \item COEXISTENCE IN THE SHORT TERM: ! 1322: \begin{nrtc} ! 1323: \item TS-BRIDGE MINIMIZES SOFTWARE INVESTMENT ! 1324: \end{nrtc} ! 1325: ! 1326: \item COEXISTENCE IN THE LONG TERM: ! 1327: \begin{nrtc} ! 1328: \item NS-TUNNEL MAXIMIZES PERFORMANCE AND ROBUSTNESS ! 1329: \end{nrtc} ! 1330: ! 1331: \item IF/WHEN THERE ARE NO MORE TCP/IP-BASED NETWORKS, THEN THE ! 1332: COEXISTENCE PERIOD IS OVER, AND TRANSITION IS A NON-ISSUE! ! 1333: \end{nrtc} ! 1334: \end{bwslide} ! 1335: ! 1336: ! 1337: \end{document}
This archive runs on limited infrastructure. Preserving old code on modern bandwidth. Automated agents are requested to crawl responsibly.