The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

[Juha Heinanen <jh@lohi.dat.tele.fi>]

i don't see any friction between ip and atm.  at present, atm is
necessary for me, since it provides flexible and economical bandwidth
and low cost physical 155 mbps network access for ip. if someone else
wants to replace ip with atm (or more b/isdn) then that is their
business and i don't care about it.  i can live with what ever users
and the market will decide.

is steve really so scared of atm that instead of any constructive
contributions, he flames regularly on atm related mailing lists?
usually flaming other people's work instead of promoting one's own stuff
is a sign of weakness.  i would imagine that there is enough work to be
done in trying to convince people that ipv6 is a good idea that no time
would be left for flaming atm.

returning back to your last sentence, the technical point about a common
addressing scheme for ipv6 and atm, there already is one (or will be when
the draft about representing ip46 address as nsaps gets its rfc
number).  by applying that draft, anyone can use ip6v addresses as atm
addresses.  there will also be a common routing protocol, called i-pnni,
which can be used to route both ip and atm.

// juha