Re: Initiating X.25 calls

["Dean D. Throop" <[e-mail]>]

>>From: [e-mail] (Steve Huston)
>>
>>>I know that the IP over X.25 MIB specifies ioxConIpAddress, which can be
>>>translated into a destination X.25 address, but shouldn't the X.25 MIB
>>>provide a mechanism to directly configure calls?
>>
>>From my perspective, an X.25 virtual circuit is opened on behalf of a
>>client protocol.  It's the client that ought to know whom it's going to
>>communicate with, and therefore should provide the destination X.121
>>address for a call.
>
>I've only been following this thread loosely, so please forgive me if I
>missed the point here, but I thought that what Mark was looking for was a
>way to configure call setup facilities for specific X.121 addresses.
>This has been a very useful, if not necessary, thing to be able to do.
>Last IP-on-X.25 implementation I worked on, we had to set up calls with
>opposite-of-default facilities for calls to a certain PDN overseas.
>
The X.25 MIB has objects for controlling the default call parameters
used by a particular X.25 subnetwork PLE.  I think that making the
MIB handle multiple default parameters disginguished by destination address
would create a structure that would not map naturally onto 
existing implementations.  It just feels correct to make the 
upper layer entity MIB keep parameters associated with a
destination address when the destination can't use the default
parameters.  I don't think very many PLEs keep a complete list
of all addresses they can talk with so I don't think they
should be asked to keep the parameters for those addresses.

Dean Throop		[e-mail]