The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

[Grenville Armitage <gja@bellcore.com>]

Since it appears some people are missing the point on this sub-thread:

>>> Reality check here - are you _seriously_ suggesting people are going
>>> to be building MARS-based IP multicast over ATM solutions when their
>>> ATM switches are having trouble coping with a pt-mpt VC with a _single_
>>> leaf node!? C'mon Andrew, lets not optimize for silly cases.
>>
>>It's not a case of "having trouble with a pt-mpt VC", it's just an economic 
>>argument not to waste resources unnecessarily: I believe there will be a 
>>cost differential between pt-pt and pt-mpt-with-a-single-leaf in many
>>cases (do any other switch vendors think this important? If not, I'll willingly
>>wear the "silly" hat and do a "silly walk" off into the corner).

That's not the point, Andrew. Whether a switch requires more
resources to do pt-mpt calls vs pt-pt is not my issue. Re-read
my quote. Its whether you're wasting our time trying to 'optimize'
ServerControlVC in an IP/MARS/ATM environment. (read "there's
a lot of pt-mpt gonna to be happening there, dude.") My observation
is especially true since (a) chance of having only _one_ MCS ever
registered in a "pt-mpt afraid zone" are zippo, and (b) I've
explained that fleshing out the details of MCS behaviour is for
a companion document to ipmc-12.

Hell, if we're going to get frightened of using pt-mpt calls
we may as well just pack up the entire MARS work and chuck
it down the nearest and deepest /dev/null.

gja