Subject: Names in ACTPU/ACTLU

From: "Derek W. Bolton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 95 10:17:42 EST

David Bryant considers it onerous to map between XID0 and XID3 in
order to support downstream legacy PUT2.0s.  It might not be trivial,
but it doesn't seem all that hard either.  Dave, is there any specific
concern you have in this?  

Certainly there are products which already do this (e.g. 3172
SNACOM?).  In fact, the 3172 provides proxy XID support for
leased-line PUT2.0s which are so antique they don't support XID at
all.  New bits in XID0 would not solve that case.

- Derek Bolton
  Metaplex P/L

(... usual disclaimers ...)