The IP Over NBMA (ION) Archive

[smirnow@fokus.gmd.de (Michael Smirnow)]

Kent W. England wrote:

> At 07:03 PM 16-11-96 +0200, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> >before we start to see lots of other ip switching proposals, it might be
> >a good idea to develop a method to classify them.  
> 
> Excellent idea. In order to help that process along, I would like to
> try a different taxonomy for the purpose of discussion and ask the 
> proposers whether this is a correct view and to comment on my points.
> 
> Class 1) Proposals which maintain ATM signaling
> Class 2) Proposals which replace ATM signaling with something else
> 
> In historical order:
> IP switching is in Class 1)

I'm not an expert, but all documents which I know from Ipsilon and P.Newman
about IP switch insist on the fact that IP switch has NO ATM software at all
(no ATM signalling)

> Tag switching is in Class 2)
> SITA is in Class 2)
> ARIS is in Class 1)
> 
> One of the topics of discussion to this point in time has revolved around flow
> merging. It would seem to me that Class 1) proposals must modify ATM
> to make this happen. 

... or this is your proposal: i.e. you want Ipsilon to modify ATM signalling??

> Another topic has to do with how far the integration process extends. Does
> the proposal deal with a single device or a network of devices? IP switching
> deals with a single ATM switch and an outboard controller. 

Again, forgive me (I'm not an expert), in the same manner you can say that
any IP router is a 'proposal which deals with a single device'. The fact is,
to my mind, whether you're thinking in connectionless or connectio-oriented
manner.

Michael