The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

[bryang@eng.adaptec.com (Bryan Gleeson)]

Andrew,

>
>At the risk of being LAN-centric, I would recommend taking the
>same approach as LAN Emulation did with this problem: simplify
>the end-station at the expense of a more VCCs. ATM addresses
>are (relatively) free - at least 256 times cheaper
>than MAC addresses and it is not an onerous requirement to
>allocate seperate ones per-LIS. This implies changing the "MAY" in your
>statement above to a "MUST NOT".
>
>

Yes I would like to change the "MAY" to a "MUST NOT". What I would
like is VCC separation and having different ATM addresses is a 
way to achieve that. Strictly speaking it is possible to get VCC
separation using the one ATM address by mandating that nodes 
calling that endpoint use different VCCs for different LISs.
However it is more conservative to enforce this though different
ATM addresses than to rely on the good behaviour of a remote client.

Bryan