The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

Cell Relay Retreat>List Archive>month:1995-May> msg00088



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

IGMP over ATM

  • From: Andrew Smith <asmith@Baynetworks.COM>
  • Date: Mon, 8 May 95 13:42:24 PDT

> Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 12:34:32 -0700
> From: ghill@atmsys.com (Greg Hill)
> To: ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re:  IGMP over ATM

Greg, 

> This is not a matter of a tool with options. This is, so to speak, two
> different tools, as the alternatives are not compatible. As you stated
> above: "... and additionally specify that ALL hosts MUST have ...".

Grenville has been trying to make the options compatible, against the 
resistance of some on this list.

> The fact is, most vendors would interpret your "options" as requirements
> (the "MUST" above).  This would delay product offerings, which for many
> of us, vendors and customers, is not a good thing. 

And yet several vendors on this list seem quite happy to sell partial 
solutions (RFC 1577) and offer (optional) upgrades to do things like multicast or 
redundancy at some later, unspecified date and then claim that this is preferable 
to offering a single solution with 2 options in the same spec at the 
same time. How many seperate upgrades to 1577 drivers (and hardware of course) 
do you believe it will take before customers start getting bored with ATM?

Whether you should have (a) later enhancements to a baseline spec, rather than
(b) "options" within one spec, is a wash at best. I think most customers would
prefer (b). Are there any customers out there other than NAP deployers? Hello????

> IMO, There should be a
> compelling justification for this (a new encap), which I have yet to hear.

What you ought to need justification for is the requirement (larger LISs) not 
the effect of that requirement (a new encap). This is the question that
Grenville posed (see "Subject: What size is a LIS? Date: Mon, 08 May 1995 
14:44:40 -0400 From: Grenville Armitage <gja@thumper.bellcore.com>) and
the is the one we are arguing over.

> -Greg
> 

Andrew


********************************************************************************
Andrew Smith					TEL:	+1 408 764 1574
Technology Synergy Unit				FAX:	+1 408 988 5525
Bay Networks, Inc.				E-m:	asmith@baynetworks.com
Santa Clara, CA
********************************************************************************