RFC 1209 (IP over SMDS) advancement to Draft Standard

[Andy Malis <[e-mail]>]

Back in December, I started the process of advancing RFC 1209, "The
Transmission of IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service", from Proposed
Standard to Draft Standard.

I asked for submissions of implementation experience, and comments
concerning the RFC's quality.  This message summarizes the replies I
received in the order they came in.

Hewlett Packard: Demonstrated HP host implementation at Interop90 San
Jose.  Interoperated with ATT BNS 2000 switch, Sun workstations, and
ADC Kentrox SMDS DSUs.  Implemented the entire RFC except for XID.
The independent implementations interoperated the first time.

Bellsouth: "Implemented RFC 1209 using SMDS in our internal network
several years ago.  It worked fine and we used many different vendors'
equipment.  We also used it when we hosted the IETF meeting in July
1991."

Wandel and Goltermann: "As part of the SMDS DXI decode package for our
protocol analyzer, Wandel & Goltermann supports RFC-1209.  We have an
application (DXIPing) that runs on our protocol analyzer that emulates
the DTE at the DXI."  They also reported that they have multiple
customers (names withheld) successfully using the test package, with
no reported problems.

ADC Kentrox submitted a very detailed reply.  To summarize, their SMDS
DSUs have been available for the past four years, and are compatible
with a variety of RFC 1209-compliant routers.  In 1993, they added
inband SMDS communication capabilities to all of their existing SMDS
DSUs.  "Each of these SMDSUs have successfully used the RFC 1209
standard to allow inband TCP/IP-over-SMDS communication between a
remote TCP/IP host and an SMDSU for the purpose of network management.
Inband communication is symmetrically supported from both directions
(i.e., towards and from the network as well as towards and from the
DTE)."  They implemented the entire RFC except for IP multicasting
when acting as an IP endstation.  "With regard to inband
communications, our SMDSUs have all interoperated successfully with a
number of RFC 1209-compliant routers including (but not necessarily
limited to) Cisco, Wellfleet (Bay Networks), 3Com, ACC, Ascom
Timeplex, and HP."  They also added, "RFC 1209 is a model of
conciseness and clarity. ...  RFC 1209 is definitely ready for
advancement.  It is straight-forward and stable, and has a sufficient
set of interoperable implementations."

Ascom Timeplex: Has implemented RFC 1209 on its Enterprise Router and
Access Router.  The only part of the RFC not implemented was
multicasting support.  The only explicit interoperability testing was
with Cisco routers, although no problem reports have come in from the
field.

Bay Networks (Wellfleet): Implements RFC 1209, has interoperated with
Cisco routers.

Cisco: Has implemented RFC 1209 with multi-LIS support.  "We have
interoperated with several vendors successfully.  Hence, we agree that
RFC 1209 be advanced to Draft standard."

I did not receive any objections to advancing RFC 1209.

With this, I ask the IESG to consider the IPLPDN WG's request to
advance RFC 1209 to Draft Standard.

Regards,
Andy Malis
Virtual Chair, IETF IP over Large Public Data Networks Working Group
__________________________________________________________________________
Andrew G. Malis   [e-mail]             [phone]
Ascom Timeplex    289 Great Rd., Acton MA 01720 USA   FAX: [phone]