Cell Relay Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] ATM address format frustration.
Hi, Is anyone else as frustrated as I that the ATM vendor community can't come to agreement over something as simple as how ATM addresses should be entered or displayed to the end user? Has the ENR raised this as an issue? I've seen the following formats used on various user interfaces (some vendors even use different formats within their own product lines, gasp): 39 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 00 01 01 00 00 00 00 0c 35 43 40 00 39.000000000001010001010000.00000c354340.00 39.0000.0000.0001.0100.0101.0000.0000.0c35.4340.00 39.00.00.00.00.00.01.01.00.01.01.00.00.00.00.0c.35.43.40.00 3900000000000101000101000000000c35434000 39:00:00:00:00:00:01:01:00:01:01:00:00:00:00:0c:35:43:40:00 0x3900000000000101000101000000000c35434000 39-00-00-00-00-00-01-01-00-01-01-00-00-00-00-0c-35-43-40-00 This is more a plea to vendors than anything else. It is hard enough troubleshooting ATM networks without having to deal with all these formats (i.e. is it immediately obvious to everyone that the above addresses are indeed the same?). Personally, I much prefer: 39.0000.0000.0001.0100.0101.0000.0000.0c35.4340.00 because the esi and selector byte stand out, the groupings are not so big or so small as to become meaningless, and the punctuation stays mostly out of the way. Again, personally, I think whoever came up with: 39:00:00:00:00:00:01:01:00:01:01:00:00:00:00:0c:35:43:40:00 ought to be denied their ice cream for a week. That format is *horrendous*! Please, please think about us users when concocting things like this. Just venting, -- Allen Robel Area Code + Prefix: 812-855 Indiana University Office 0962, NetLab 3697, Fax 8299 http://www.netlab.indiana.edu/~robelr mailto:robelr@netlab.indiana.edu |
|