Transparent Gateways


Mike St. Johns (stjohns@beast.DDN.MIL)
Wed, 21 Sep 88 22:05:07 edt


I thought I'd better drop my 2 cents worth in here - maybe it will do
some good.

a) RFC1005 regarding a possible change to the addressing structure of
the C30 networks was distributed for review and comment only. We've
since decided it was a bad idea and are no longer considering this as
a valid approach to expanding beyond 256 packet switches.

b) The third octet is, and always has been reserved for logical
addressing - actually local demultiplexing. It was originally used
for a device called an Arpanet port expander. This device lives on in
the form of a transparent gateway and the Air Force Concentrator -
both forms of the same basic approach. Barring a substantial change
in technology in the next 5 years - the third octet will continue to
be reserved for local demultiplexing.

c) ACC is correct - there are a number of transparent gateways in use
on the MILNET. The only host table registration requirement is for
the device actually connected to the port. We are discouraging the
host table listing of hosts not actually connected directly to the
Arpanet or the Milnet.

d) I am not aware of the Milnet manager discouraging the use of the
transparent addressing scheme - this is definitely incorrect in face
of the recent award of the Air Force concentrator device contract with
an expected number of connections greater than 200.

I'll go out on a limb far enough to say that the above is official.
If anyone needs formal confirmation of the above - direct a letter to
the DDN Program Manager to the attention of the Technical Manager
asking for clarification.

Mike StJohns
Capt, USAF
Defense Data Network Programs
and all around good-guy!



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:43:30 GMT