Dismiss
InnovationQ will be updated on Sunday, Oct. 22, from 10am ET - noon. You may experience brief service interruptions during that time.
Browse Prior Art Database

Critique of X.25 (RFC0874)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003923D
Original Publication Date: 1982-Sep-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 12 page(s) / 36K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

M.A. Padlipsky: AUTHOR

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 8% of the total text.

---------

< INC-PROJECT, MAP-CRITIQUE.NLS.10, >, 12-Aug-83 11:46 AMW ;;;;

RFC 874 September 1982

M82-50

A CRITIQUE OF X.25

M.A. PADLIPSKY

THE MITRE CORPORATION

Bedford, Massachusetts

ABSTRACT

The widely touted network interface protocol, "X.25", and

its attendant conceptual framework, the International Standards

Organization's Reference Model for Open System Interconnection

(ISORM), are analyzed and found wanting. The paper is a

companion piece to M82-48, and M82-51.

i

A CRITIQUE OF X.25

M. A. Padlipsky

Introduction

According to some sources, the International Standards

Organization's (ISO) "Open System Interconnection" (OSI) effort

has adopted the International Consultative Committee on Telephony

and Telegraphy (CCITT) developed X.25 protocol(s) as its Levels

1-3. ("Loose constructionists" of the ISORM would hold that X.25

is a mechanization of L1-L3 rather than the mechanization, and at

least one British source holds that "we in the U.K. don't believe

that ISO have adopted X.25.") In the U.S. Government arena,

where the author spends much of his time, the Government

Accounting Office (GAO) has suggested that the Department of

Defense (DoD) ought to consider adopting "X.25 networks,"

apparently in preference to networks based on protocols developed

by the DoD-sponsored intercomputer networking research community.

That intercomputer networking research community in turn has,

with a few recent exceptions, adhered to its commitment to the

Oral Tradition and not taken up the cudgels against X.25 in the

open literature, even though X.25 is an object of considerable

scorn in personal communications.

Although the DoD Protocol Standards Technical Panel has

begun to evolve a "Reference Model" different from ISO's for

reasons which will be touched on below, there seems to be a need

to address the deficiencies of X.25 on their own demerits as soon

as possible. Without pretending to completeness*, this paper will

attempt to do just that.

The overall intent is to deal with X.25 in the abstract;

because of who pays the bills, though, a necessary preliminary is

to at least sketch the broad reasons why the DoD in particular

...