The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

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

> > If you think RSVP is not enough, why not move forward to have
> > a better IP signalling protocol streamlined with Q.2931.
> 
> I didn't mean to dismiss this option. Something between RSVP, which
> reserves assets but does incorporate any route selection functionality
> and certainly not any such functionality based on QoS criteria, and 
> Q.2931, which assumes a slow channel setup based on the telephone model,
> is what I believe we need.

Fine, but the point is that NHRP is proven not to be our option.

> What makes IP over ATM difficult boils down to these two items, I think:

> A lot of what is being done for IP over ATM seems to try to live with
> these incompatibilities rather than eliminate them.

Agreed, and, remember how thermo-dynamics was invented.

Now, we have a proof that NHRP is equivalent to an eternally-working
engine.

> Are these short-term
> answers

ATMARP and LANE maybe.

But, as ATM large clouds do not and, in short-term, will not, exist,
NHRP is not a short- or long- term answer.

> or do we think the incompatibilities can't be eliminated?

Do you, or anyone else, think three monthes are not long enough
for the attempt of the counter proof?

						Masataka Ohta