From ietf-ppp-request@ucdavis Fri Feb 23 07:45:36 1990 Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu by aggie.ucdavis.edu (5.61/UCD2.03) id AA07826; Fri, 23 Feb 90 07:34:26 -0800 Received: by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (5.51/UCD1.41) id AA29052; Fri, 23 Feb 90 07:02:02 PST Reply-To: ietf-ppp@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu Sender: ietf-ppp-request@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu Errors-To: ietf-ppp-request@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu Received: by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (5.51/UCD1.41) id AA28998; Fri, 23 Feb 90 06:55:55 PST Received: from VITAM6.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP id AA19088; Fri, 23 Feb 90 09:55:29 -0500 Message-Id: <9002231455.AA19088@uunet.uu.net> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 09:33:37 PST From: VITAM6!baker@uunet.UU.NET (Fred Baker) To: uunet!"dkatz@merit.edu"@uunet.UU.NET, uunet!"ietf-ppp@ucdavis.edu"@uunet.UU.NET, uunet!"katz@merit.edu"@uunet.UU.NET Subject: OSI on PPP Status: O Question for the PPP crowd, from Dave Katz. The PPP spec leaves a hole for OSI protocols (calls it CLNP, although that is a subset of the actual requirement). Is anyone working on a draft RFC to describe this? If not, it shouldn't be too tough - I can knock one out. Fred Baker baker@vitalink.com > > > A protocol type is assigned for CLNP. No documentation is provided in this > > RFC about how to use it - > > Is any work currently underway for how to use PPP for OSI? The first > change would be to alter the semantics of the type code from CLNP to > OSI Network Layer and use the NLPID to demux. >