Subject: re:Note from jim (j.) cobban dated Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:23:40

From: "jim (j.) cobban" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 09:32:00 -0400

In written English it is sometimes difficult to express emphasis, and
therefore you seem to have missed the point of my concern.

In message "Note from jim (j.) cobban dated Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:23:40", 
you write:

>I think the routed SNA formats in FRF.3 are ideal for communication
>between SNA NNs, ENs, and LENs.  The problem that we tried to solve
>with BAN was the interconnection of subarea LAN nodes to NCP through
>non-APPN routers.  We felt that introduction of another way to do
>'SNA over Frame Relay' was worth it when weighed against the increased
>ease of administration that BAN allows.
>>
>>Should the AIW consider abandoning the existing recommendation and focussing
>>on the more flexible 802.5 ("bigGER, not BIG") and IP encapsulations?  Or
>>should we be more insistent that the recommended format is base
>>functionality, and therefore products which use another format exclusively
>>are not compliant to the architecture?
>
>Why should there only be one format?  All three have there place:
>  - FRF.3: Native attachment of NNs, ENs, and LENs.
>  - BAN:   Interconnection of subarea SNA nodes through non-APPN routers.
>  - IP encap: Transport of SNA over IP backbones.

My note was posted to an APPN mailing list, and I expressly only made
reference to connectivity of APPN nodes.  The problem which I am facing is
that my APPN implementation is FORCED to implement all three of these
encapsulations because there is no single encapsulation, not even FRF.3,
which is supported by ALL APPN implementations.  I view this as a violation
of the architecture.  However I am willing to concede that market forces
outweigh architectures as long as the AIW decides on ONE encapsulation which
is base functionality for an APPN compliant node.  Why should I be forced to
implement DLSw in order to communicate with a 6611 across a frame-relay
virtual circuit.  Why should I be forced to implement BAN to communicate
with an APPN node which is attached to a token-ring through a gateway?

---

From: [email-masked] (Tony Clark)
Date: 26 Jun 1995 15:39:50 GMT

This message was automatically generated upon receipt of your email message.  

Tony Clark is currently out of the office and will not return until Friday,
June 30th.

If your message is urgent, please contact Jim Vogt at (408) 7

---

From: [email-masked] (Tony Clark)
Date: 26 Jun 1995 16:21:55 GMT

If your message is urgent, please contact Jim Vogt at (408) 7Q&