In message <v04220814b53843a04a47@[216.240.40.198]> Erik Fair writes:

>This sort of thing would be a whole lot easier if we had dmr's 
>streams (not to be confused with the evil abortion that ended up in 
>System V) in NetBSD. They're perfect for connection-oriented 
>networking.

This turns out to be somewhat of an overstatement.  (this based on
slight experience and detailed discussion with someone from Newcastle
with really really deep handson 10th Edition experience).

>Sounds like you have to do FTAM over OSI CONS on top of BRI ISDN. Nasty.

If you understated this one to balance, I think you overdid it:)

>If it's easier to make an X.25 implementation work in userland, then 
>by all means start there. If we need to move it inside the kernel for 
>efficiency, performance, code sharing, whatever, we can do that 
>later, after we have an implementation that is known to actually work.

2B+D is okay. the pain with userlevel kicks in at T3 or higher speeds.

>To make an X.25 implementation really work, you're going to have to 
>test against existing implementations for interoperability, and 
>adjust your code for variances in the other implementations.

Yeah, like losing the top bit of every byte on transcontinental
connections, 5ESS bugs, little things like that. X.121, fegh.

>Fortunately, the last time I had anything to do with an X.25 network 
>was 1996, so take some of my comments with a grain or two of salt - 
>things may have improved in the interim.

the carrier internal networks may have changed. the red and yellow
fascicles?  i havent checked in years, but unlikely.