On 2006-07-31 23:16:12 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...


Most of the OSI devotees came from telco backgrounds and the use of X.25.

Matt...no......

They naturally gravitated towards a connection oriented protocol

Matt...no...... Conectionless was one of the key points.

Once they realised how dreadfully slow connection oriented was and that
it was unnecessary anyway.



That would certainly have killed it if the committees hadn't.

The committees had scum like IBM on them, which they should not have had.

There were all kinds of people on them. The problem was that through
having to use lengthy and bureaucratic procedures, progress was
incredibly slow. The market moved on and left them behind.




Then an inferior TCP/IP was adopted which didn't have enough scope for
all the addresses, as it was a cobbled together improvise in the first
place.

That is also rubbish.

Nonsense Matt. Read Tenambaum, well the earlier versions. All sorts of
clever IP address jiggery pokery was formulated to keep the crock
going. The only people who pushed TCP/IP were private companies who had
a vested interest in keeping OSI out.

Like the U.S. Department of Defense for example. When did Uncle Sam
outsource that to private enterprise?

Uncle Sam was going OSI.

Not for very long.



TCP/IP was put together in Snowbird near Salt Lake City. I've been to
the hotel where a bunch of students zipped up this inadequate 5 layer
stack on backs of envelopes. OSI was deemed to be carrying too much
baggage in the headers ay the time.

... and so it does. This is why it is so little used. Some telephone
switch equipment still uses it, but it's unusual to find it other than
that.

It was used by BMW extensively, British government departments used it
too, along with European and US..

Quite a number of large companies used X.25 because that was a standard
telco offering and could be used internally as well. There was an
initial assumption that it would migrate, in modified form to more
substantial networks. This never went anywhere because progress was
too slow and the market passed it all by.


Today with high speed networks this is not a problem. It was stated
that it would be fine when infrastructure caught up. You could also
have null layers if you liked to speed it up.

Th rapid spread of the Internet and the w.w.w., which had not adopted
OSI as it was still being implemeted in various government departments
and had not quite reached the rest, killed OSI. Nothing else. It was
too late to turn back the TCP/IP protocol. If the www had been two
years later it probably would have had an OSI protocol stack.

No it wouldn't.

It would have.

No it wouldn't. IP based networks were well established before Mr
Berners-Lee came along.