Subject: Re: questions about INT SERV

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 00:18:18 PDT

> > in your model atm is below rsvp and in mine atm SIGNALING and rsvp are 
> > at the same level. how you relate them is a matter of opinion or 
> > religion, since there is there no way you could avoid the host making 
> > the split at some level of the protocol stack.
> 
> I call ATM a subnet technology.  IP is on top of all subnets.
> Yes you may consider it a matter of opinion or religion.  I firmly
> believe that ATM, as all other subnet technologes, comes and goes, and
> I wish applications programmers dont have to be bothered with that detail.

reading my own msg looped back from the WG list, I realized that my
earlier reply overlooked the capitalized SIGNALING part in "atm
SIGNALING" -- perhaps it suggests that the SIGNALING part is above ATM,
and hence is somehow independent from ATM ?  (and could overlive ATM)

I apologize for the overlooking.  I still hold my original position.
All subnets should adapt IP signaling, not the ATM signaling protocols.

Lixia

---

From: [email-masked] (John Krawczyk)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 09:49:49 EST

Lixia

Hi Lixia,

I was a bit confused here, so I want to make sure I understand you
correctly.

If there's some notion of using ATM signalling as a universal,
end-to-end way to get QoS from an IP network, I agree that this is a
silly idea.

If RSVP is the IP signalling protocol (not such a silly idea), ATM
signalling _is_ still needed so you get the desired service from the
ATM subnet.  ATM signalling does not need to be replaced with IP
signalling.  It should just be considered a part of the subnet layer.

Are we on the same page?

-jj