Re: Use of TUBA connectivity

"David M. Piscitello" <dave@mail.bellcore.com> Tue, 02 March 1993 18:13 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05737; 2 Mar 93 13:13 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05733; 2 Mar 93 13:13 EST
Received: from p.lanl.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15275; 2 Mar 93 13:13 EST
Received: from noc-gw.lanl.gov by p.lanl.gov (5.65/1.14) id AA12838; Tue, 2 Mar 93 11:06:58 -0700
Received: by noc-gw.lanl.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29872; Tue, 2 Mar 93 11:06:02 MST
Return-Path: <dave@mail.bellcore.com>
Received: from p.lanl.gov by noc-gw.lanl.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29868; Tue, 2 Mar 93 11:06:01 MST
Received: from worldlink.com by p.lanl.gov (5.65/1.14) id AA12768; Tue, 2 Mar 93 11:05:57 -0700
Received: from localhost by worldlink.worldlink.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-Worldlink) id AA08122; Tue, 2 Mar 93 13:07:08 -0500
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 13:07:08 -0500
Message-Id: <9303021807.AA08122@worldlink.worldlink.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "David M. Piscitello" <dave@mail.bellcore.com>
To: "Richard (R.J.) Thomas" <rjthomas@bnr.ca>
Cc: tuba@lanl.gov, noop@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Use of TUBA connectivity

I see a number of benefits from running TUBA:

1)	tangible evidence that implementations exist and
	interoperate add credibility to this IPv7 alternative
2)	use of tcp applications will increase traffic on the CLNP-capable 
	parts of the internet, which tests routing protocols
3)	increased numbers of end users on CLNP can drive the deployment
	of CLNP in regionals and access networks that have not yet done so
4)	increased operational experience for CLNP creates an incentive
	for vendors to implement noop tools and SNMP MIBs for CLNP, etc.
5)	allows for the implementation of the transition plan on an initially 
	small scale

IMHO, for truly effective operational experience, 
we need to run email over TUBA. This is a meat-and-potatoes application.

For performance information, it might be useful to consider XoverTuba and NFS
applications in LAN environments, and ftp's over the internet. telnet is an 
interesting first step, but it probably doesn't represent the sort of traffic 
load that mail, etc. do 

I would  suggest that some site that offers anonymous ftp access to I-Ds or 
RFCs do so running a dual stack TCP/IP and TUBA/CLNP host for this purpose.
Anyone up for doing so? 
How many sites intend to pilot tuba? 
What obstacles do we have to overcome to get these sites connected across 
the internet? 


We should measure growth in CLNP usage as well as the typical 
throughput/efficiency metrics, the latter against TCP/IP as well as
TCP/SIP-IPAE and TCP/PIP.