The IP Over NBMA (ION) Archive

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

> > Make UNI/NNI an RSVP clone, make ATM and IP addresses mechanically
> > translatable, and so on.
> 
> You know what the irony is? It's that RSVP is a UNI/NNI clone. Now you
> want to make a UNI/NNI the clone of its clone! But basically I agree
> with your intent. I just wonder who should be made the clone of whom.
> (To be clear, I think that PNNI is a more complete solution, although I
> can't find the promised update at ftp.atmforum.com.)
>  
> > It'll make ATM swiches eventual IP routers, save packet format.
> 
> Of course. Going in this direction, that's what would happen.
>  
> > The approach should be called "strong peer model".
> > 
> > Do you like it?
> 
> Yes, it's the kind of approach I think will be needed to unkludge the
> kludge.

OK. But, as it is out of the scope of IETF, you should let ITU or
ATM Forum do the job.

Then, IETF can use the peer model.

> But again, the question is whose signaling to use as foundation.

Any signaling whose merging behaviour is affected by IP addresses.

> On a somewhat related topic, if we introduce NHRP, why should we make it
> different from ATMARP?

OK. Just rename ATMARP NHRP.

						Masataka Ohta