The IP Over NBMA (ION) Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>ION Archive>month:1996-Nov> msg00146



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Taxonomy of Routing/Switching Proposals

  • From: Albert Manfredi <manfredi@engr05.comsys.rockwell.com>
  • Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:20:08 -0800
  • CC: ion@nexen.com
  • Organization: Rockwell Defense Electronics - Collins

magician@kuis.kyoto-u.ac.jp wrote:

[ ... ]

> But what is a problem?
> Our goals are implementing IP over ATM,
> and making the best use of the advantages of ATM
> (broad bandwidth, low delay and low jitter).
> To make use of Q.2931 is not a goal.

True enough, Kenji. The bottom line hasn't changed, though. The bottom
line is whether high quality "integrated services" will be feasible with
RSVP as is. If the answer is no, if RSVP will need to be somehow
improved, then the question is whether the updated RSVP will be
significantly different from the Q. stuff.

I still think we (the ATMF, that is) needs to offer a streamlined, much
faster version of Q.2931 to make this ATM more useful, less of a
nuisance. With the requisite leaf-initiated join and multicast
addressing built in as well.

Bert
manfredi@engr05.comsys.rockwell.com