The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

Cell Relay Retreat>List Archive>month:1995-Oct> msg00051



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

Last Call for draft-ietf-rolc-apr-00.txt

  • From: Andrew Smith <asmith@baynetworks.com>
  • Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 14:22:39 PDT
  • Cc: rolc@nexen.com
  • X-Orig-Sender: owner-rolc@nexen.com

Dilip,

>  The implication throughout is that an SVC is needed to support QoS.
> 
> The implication is that QoS requirements would be considered as a
> guide to setup SVCs.  Yes, there is also a belief that an SVC would
> provide better QoS (e.g. delay) since it avoids IP level handling
> costs at intermediate nodes.

I don't think we should be making assumptions like that in an architectural
document: that is an implementation issue. I certainly know of some ATM switches
with higher latency (under some traffic conditions) than routers .... :-)

> -- Dilip.
> 

Andrew


********************************************************************************
Andrew Smith					TEL:	+1 408 764 1574
Technology Synergy Unit				FAX:	+1 408 988 5525
Bay Networks, Inc.				E-m:	asmith@baynetworks.com
Santa Clara, CA
********************************************************************************