The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp>]

> 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.

If you are content with packet-wise relaying by routers, we don't
need ATM subnet logical. So, make LIS physically contegeous entity
separated by IP routers and call LIS just IP subnet.

But, the current framework document draft says:

:IP over ATM should therefore be characterized by:

:  o Degree  to which a  connection oriented  lower level is  available
:    and utilized.

> > > 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.

> 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.

No, the classical model does not try to scale a number of hosts in
a LIS to global scale. So what?

The current framework document draft also says:

:The following characteristics of the  IP over ATM internetwork may  be
:independent of geographic dispersion (LAN, MAN, or WAN).

:  o The size of ATM IP subnets (LIS) in the ATM Internetwork.

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

There are no WGs yet. Moreover, we are discussing on the objective of
IP over ATM protocols, in general, not related to a specific proposal.

> ps- Please let this thread die.

If you insists that packet-wise relaying is enough, you should let
the IPATM WG die, instead.

							Masataka Ohta