The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>]

In message <199505110404.NAA10799@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp>, Masataka Ohta writ
es:
> 
> LISes are, from the begininng, considered to be unscalable.
> 
> That is, everyone agreed from the day one that the number of hosts
> in a LIS can not be arbitrary large.
> 
> The problem we are discussing these days are that, LISes can't be
> geographically large. The size of LISes are physically constrained.
> 
> The point of LIS model that the size of LISes can be arbitrary large,
> is denied.

There is no reason why a LIS should be made large.  The fact that LIS
are kept small and interconnected by routers to form an internetwork
is a feature of IP, and a featue of Classical IP over ATM, not a bug.

> > LIS will be fine.  But, LIS will have some issues (e.g. "complete" 
> > autoconfiguration). 
> 
> You had better call your geographically crippled version of LIS
> PLIS (Physical Logical IP Subnet) or, more simply, just subnet.
> 
> 							Masataka Ohta

Yes.  LIS equals subnet.  The Classical model does not try to scale a
LIS to global scale, so there is no sense criticizing it for not
acheiving a non-goal.  The Classical model works very well and there
is no reason to refer to it as crippled.

We know that you are working on an alternative and there is a separate
WG to discuss that alternative.

Curtis

ps- Please let this thread die.