Chapter 13 Wide area internetworking

  • P. L. Higginson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 184)


There will always be requirements to link dissimilar networks and the local-area to wide-area connection is just a particular case of this. Many of the reasons for networks adopting different procedures are technical, for example due to the higher speed and lower cost of local networks, but some are historical, and are a consequence of the investment needed to establish a network. As a result, protocol translation services are required.

For future networks, the standardisation by ISO of Transport Layer protocols will provide easier ways to link networks and hopefully a solution to the addressing problems of local networks. It will be some time before the equivalent standardisation of higher level protocols will remove the need for functional mapping of higher level protocols.

At UCL we have successfully linked our local network and its services to two different external protocol systems (and hence three wide-area networks) using a common interface for call level protocols which is similar in function to the ISO Transport Service. We have used Relays to map all of the protocols of one hierarchy into those of another for both Electronic Mail and Interactive Access. In addition our local network is linked as part of the DARPA Catenet. Those local hosts able to support Arpanet protocols can interwork with other hosts supporting the same protocols. In general, more services are available via conversion than via encapsulation.


Transmission Control Protocol Local Network Internet Protocol Network Code Transport Protocol 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Bibliography

  1. D.W. Medcraft: Development of the UK Packet Switched Services, Proc. Conf. on Data networks ONLINE, 173, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. A. Danet et al: The French Public Packet Switching Service, The TRANSPAC Network, Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Computer Communication, Toronto, 251–269, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. L.G. Roberts: Telenet: Principles and Practice, Proc. of the European Computing Conference on Communication Networks, London, 325–329, 1975Google Scholar
  4. J. Rinde: TYMNET: An Alternative to Packet Switching Technology, Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf. on Computer Communication, Toronto, 268–273, 1976.Google Scholar
  5. A.M. Rybczynski,: Datapac Service Characteristics, Proc. D.F. Weir of the 5th Data Comms. Symp. 4–50, Utah, 1977.Google Scholar
  6. J. Postel 81a: Transmission Control Protocol, USC/Information Sciences Institute, RFC 793, September 1981.Google Scholar
  7. J. Postel 81b: Internet Protocol, USC/Information Sciences Institute, RFC 791, September 1981.Google Scholar
  8. J. Postel 81c: Internet Control Message Protocol, USC/Information Sciences Institute, RFC 792, September 1981.Google Scholar
  9. V. Strazisar: How to Build a Gateway, IEN 109, August 1979.Google Scholar
  10. P.L Higginson: The Operation of the IPCS System, UCL Internal Note 1163, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. ISO: Open Systems Interconnection — Basic Reference Model, ISO/DIS 7498, April 1982.Google Scholar
  12. L.G. Roberts & B.D. Wessler: The ARPA Network in Computer-Communications Networks, ed. Abramson & Kuo, Prentice-Hall, pp 485–500, 1973.Google Scholar
  13. CCITT 80a: Recommendations X.3, X25, X.28 and X.29 on Packet Switched Data Transmission, International Telecommunications Union, Switzerland, 1980.Google Scholar
  14. CCITT 80b: Recommendations X.75 and X.121, International Telecommunications Union, Geneva, Switzerland, 1980.Google Scholar
  15. P.J. Lloyd: The SATNET Access Machine: Current Design and Operation, UCL Internal Note 1326, October 1982.Google Scholar
  16. PSS: A Network Independent Transport Service, Study Group Three of the British Telecom PSS User Forum, SG3/CP(80)2, February 1980.Google Scholar
  17. CCITT 80c: Network-Independent Basic Transport Service for Teletex, CCITT Draft Recommendation S.70, Document AP VII-No.88-E, 1980.Google Scholar
  18. P.T. Kirstein et al: The UNIVERSE Project, Proc ICCC '82, pp 442–447, North Holland, September 1982.Google Scholar
  19. P. Higginson & R. Moulton: Experiences with the use of the UK Network Independent File File Transfer Protocol, Proc ICCC '82, pp 913–918, North Holland, September 1982.Google Scholar
  20. C.J. Adams et al: Protocol Architecture of the Universe Project, Proc. ICCC '82, pp 379–383, North Holland, September 1982.Google Scholar
  21. J. Postel, C. Sunshine & D. Cohen: Recent Developments in the DARPA Interne Program, Proc ICCC '82, pp975–980, North Holland, September 1982.Google Scholar
  22. R. Braden, R.Cole, P. Higginson & P. Lloyd: A Distributed Approach to the InterConnection of Heterogeneous Computer Networks, Proc. Communications Architectures and Protocols Symp., SIGCOMM & '83, Austin, Texas, ACM, March 1983.Google Scholar
  23. R.H. Cole & P.J. Lloyd 83a: A Flexible Architecture for Protocol Studies in a Multi-Network Environment 9th World Computer Congress, IFIP, Paris, September 1983.Google Scholar
  24. P.J. Lloyd & 82b R.H. Cole: Transport Protocol Performance over Concatenated Local Area and Satellite Networks, Proc. Conf. on Data Networks with Satellites, Cologne, Springer-Verlag, September 1982.Google Scholar
  25. P.J. Lloyd & R.H. Cole: A Comparative Study of Protocol Performance on the UNIVERSE and SATNET Satellite Systems, Proc. Conf. on Satellite and Computer Communications, Versailles, April 1983.Google Scholar
  26. R.H. Cole, P. Lloyd, P. Higginson & R. Moulton: International Net Faces Problems Handling Mail and File Transfer, Data Communications, June 1983, pp 175–187.Google Scholar
  27. D. Crocker E. Szwkowski & D. Farber: An Internetwork Memo Distribution Capability — MMDF, Proc. 6th Data Comm. Symp., IEEE/ACM, November 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. L. Higginson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations