The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

[taddy@cc.gatech.edu (Rajesh Talpade)]

Juha

I know u haven't explicitly addressed the question to me, but 
since u forwarded it to the list, u have to hear my views :-)


> i would like to do the merging the flows at layer 2 so that the function
> is independent of a layer 3 protocol.  if mcs operates on aal_sdus, then
> it seems to be doing the right thing.  my question to you is, if atm
> forum one day would define aal_sdu aware mp-to-p atm connections in
> addition to the current p-to-p and p-to-mp connections, would mcs still
> be needed?
> 

Yes, MCS would still be needed. 

Having the mp-to-p capability would mean all senders would open one
mp-to-p connection to each receiver. This is similar to a VC Mesh,
except that it is inverted, in that each mp-to-p VC is rooted at a
receiver, ie the 'mp' in the mp-to-p are the senders, while the 'p'
is each receiver.

So we still are stuck with the same problems of VC Mesh, viz.
lotsa mp-to-p VCs, and their related problems, only more so since we 
presumably have 
significantly more receivers than senders in a group, and hence more
mp-to-p VCs.


Regards,
Rajesh.

-- 
Rajesh R. Talpade		(404)-315-1227 	     taddy@cc.gatech.edu
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/computing/Telecomm/people/Phd/taddy