tobold.org

correct • elegant • free

△ uk.misc △

◅ Branson's white elephant.

Nurses Pay ▻

Cerys Matthews

In article <77n45s$46i@axalotl.demon.co.uk>,
Hugh Davies <huge@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Dunno. I only know anything about X.25 and a tiny, tiny bit about
>X.400. They suck copiously.

I'm not as vehemently against X.25 as I used to be.  Having been a total
connectionless bigot in my youth, I eventually realised that there's
something to be said for a connection oriented network layer.  (Still, I
don't think it would have been possible to build anything like today's
Internet on a CONS, because of the memory requirements on routers.)

And increasing X.25(84)'s limit of 10^14 addresses would be trivial.

On the other hand, the requirement of a reliable link layer is stoopid.
But I think the real killer is the asymmetry that pervades the OSI
network protocols.  "No, *you* can't route X.25: you're not a telephone
company."

Tim.
--
Tim Goodwin       | "The FSF likes to write programs that require twice as much
Univ of Leicester | memory as your machine has today :-) ." -- Steve Summit

Original headers:

From: tjg@ltpcg.star.le.ac.uk (Tim J Goodwin)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: Cerys Matthews
Date: 18 Jan 1999 12:05:27 -0000
Message-ID: <77v827$71t$1@ltpcg.star.le.ac.uk>
References: <6rsodd4p9f.fsf@news.kororaa.uk.eu.org>
  <77n45s$46i@axalotl.demon.co.uk>

△ uk.misc △

◅ Branson's white elephant.

Nurses Pay ▻