Subject: Re: deploying reservations....

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 08:41:54 -0700

*> 
  *> this is nothing to do with large clouds whatsoever - you have totally
  *> misunderstood my message.
  *>  

Jon,

Your proposal clearly does not relate to large clouds.  It should be
noted, however, that your suggestion about doing 'QoS cut-through' with
ATM does appear to be closely related to the "cell-switch router"
architecture proposed at the colip-atm BOF.  Your X would play the role
of their router component, I think.

Cheers,

Bob

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark W Garrett)
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 12:48:23 -0400

Masataka,

 > ATM, as is, is OK.

I think we'd have to sit down and discuss what we think the
current state of ATM is, before we could have a meaningful
mailing-list discussion on this.

 > The problem is that global IP and global E.164 world can't
 > co-exist scalably.

 > So, the only known way to scalably have IP over ATM is to have ATM
 > locally and to have IP globally. Telcom must follow IPv6addressing
 > architecture.

There are certain functions such as autoconfiguration and
broadcast/multicast for which solutions exist that only work
for small ATM LANs, and which don't scale well.  But there's
no use in concluding that ATM cannot (or will not or should
not) be used in a wide area, because it will happen as soon
as someone runs an ATM link across an ocean or continent.  So
there is a set of interesting and difficult problems related
to IP/ATM routing and addressing; when the ATM can be
considered a classical subnet (in terms of size and extent),
how the IP routing works with an ATM cloud that might have
ATM-layer connections to distant places, etc, etc.

 > It is well known that the current telco networks are not working
 > well, which is why the Internet is expected to be a basis of GII.

 > Moreover, we expect that, in the near future, all the telephones
 > will have IPv6 addresses, don't we? If so, are there any reason
 > why telcos can avoid using IP routers?

Masataka---don't take this wrong, I mean it in a friendly way--but
most people post technical statements from which the astute reader
can infer their political bias, whereas *you* make political statements
from which we derive your technical inclinations!!  :-)

 > > When I said "mapping", I didn't mean to imply
 > > one-to-one mapping, just the general relationship between the IP
 > > flow QOS and the QOS of the ATM connection which carries the flow
 > > across the ATM cloud.

 > ABR pipes between adjacent routers can efficiently aggregate
 > best-effort flows, of course.

Ah, OK.  So I can infer that your objection to large ATM
clouds is for the routing/addressing issues.  You're agreeing
with me that when ATM can do some QOS then you can have
similarly-QOSed flows identified so they can share buffers
and bandwidth etc within the ATM layer.

-Mark

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			Bellcore   Rm. 2L-237			+1 201 829-4439
Mark W. Garrett		445 South St.			[email-masked]
			Morristown NJ 07960-6438  USA	     (FAX 201 829-2504)
                        WWW: ftp://thumper.bellcore.com/pub/mwg/homepage.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------