The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

Cell Relay Retreat>List Archive>month:1996-Jan> msg00285



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

Example of large IP flatnet

  • From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>
  • Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 16:50:45 -0500
  • Cc: curtis@ans.net, ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com


In message <96013016514946@engr05.comsys.rockwell.com>, Albert E. Manfredi writ
es:
> > From:	curtis@ans.net    30-JAN-1996 13:52
> > 
> > To summarize your proposal: The ATM flatnet is then using "shortest
> > path out" routing and essentially using default routing as well.  The
> > other media is also doing "shortest path out" to the ATM flatnet LIS.
> > There is no transit of non-ATM across ATM flatnets, but there can be
> > transit across non-ATM media to reach disjoint ATM flatnets.
> 
> Good summary. "No transit" is not a strict requirement. It was

Bert,

No transit of non-ATM across ATM flatnets is required since doing
otherwise would casue routing loops.  I don't want to go through the
details on the list (this list heard more than enough about this).
See draft-ietf-ipatm-framework-doc-06.ps, figure-4.  The routing loop
example applies to the ATM flatnet you describe, therefore "no
transit" is a strict requirement or you have to break up into smaller
LIS and run a routing protocol.

Curtis