| Title: | BASEstar Open Multiplatform Application Framework |
| Notice: | Kit pointers: see topic 3 |
| Moderator: | VARESE::CORBETTA |
| Created: | Tue Oct 02 1990 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 607 |
| Total number of notes: | 1971 |
Hi, I had the following query from a customer. Can anybody help? ===================================================================== Hi Nico... I am writting to you as a 'consultant' for Anglo American Corp. (AAC) Control & Instrumentation (C&I) department, were I am assisting with some technical issues for the Orapa 2000 programme... AAC have as an option, to use the NEW Siemens S7 PLCs for this new project, AND for most further work comming along in future. This NEW PLC can talk the old H1, a new revised H1, and - TCP/IP too... AAC would like to make use of Digital AlphaServers for ALL server functionality as a standard, of course running the latest Windows NT Version 4 for AlphaServers... The issues to date are that :- - Siemens would like to propogate H1 usage, and an H1 card does NOT exist for Alpha, (or should I say that they doubt that their 'NT' software will drive their H1 card in an Alpha system), - the emerging technology of the late-90's would strongly suggest that the TCP/IP route be used, - TCP/IP is routable, switchable, etc., and should be accessible off almost any platform now, or platform that could be dreamt up in the next decade or two... So where's the problem... --- Alas ! Siemens 'claim' that their TCP/IP cards in the PLC 'talk' an 'extended' version of TCP/IP, and that users on PC's must purchase a Siemens TCP/IP card to talk to the PLC --- ha ha... As it transpires, the 'extensions' that Siemens refer to are simply a formalization in their implementation of the IP Stack of the RFC 1006 standards within the IP Protocol Stack on the Client side... A hhaaa.... We come to the crunch... A simple question ? --- Q = Does the IP (or TCP/IP) stack on the Alpha version of Windows NT Version 4 support the RFC 1006 standards in its usage ? A = ? We hope and pray ! --- =================================================================== Thanks for any replies. Regards Nico Pretorius MCS, Digital South Africa [Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 604.1 | RFC 1006 | VARESE::ZOCCOLA | DeprimitElatosLevatAlexandriaStratos | Fri May 30 1997 11:31 | 52 |
The RFC 1006 is a ten-year-old RFC (May 1987), named:
"ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP"
Basically, what the writers of this RFC envisioned ten years ago was a future
migration of the networks toward full ISO/OSI protocols, so during an "interim"
period of time they were proposing this RFC to layer the upper 3 OSI levels
(Levels 5,6 and 7) on top of TCP/IP, then seen as a protocol with no future !!
So, they proposed an adaptation of ISO/OSI TP0/TP4 on top of TCP, to permit
the usage of upper level applications conforming to ISO/OSI on top of a
TCP/IP network.
My personal comment is that nowadays it seems obsolete (ridicolous?) to claim
a conformance to RFC 1006: the history of Internet has shown what of the two
network suites is the winner.
However, it's better to ask Microsoft for the piece of information you are
requesting.
Regards.
< Aldo >
P.S.
Here is an excerpt from the RFC 1006.
"
1. Experience teaches us that it takes just as long to get good
implementations of the lower level protocols as it takes to get
implementations of the higher level ones. In particular, it has
been observed that there is still a lot of work being done at the
ISO network and transport layers. As a result, implementations
of protocols above these layers are not being aggressively
pursued. Thus, something must be done "now" to provide a medium
in which the higher level protocols can be developed. Since
TCP/IP is mature, and essentially provides identical
functionality, it is an ideal medium to support this development.
2. Implementation of gateways at the IP and ISO IP layers are
probably not of general use in the long term. In effect, this
would require each Internet host to support both TP4 and TCP.
As such, a better strategy is to implement a graceful migration
path from TCP/IP to ISO protocols for the ARPA Internet when the
ISO protocols have matured sufficiently.
"
| |||||