Subject: An opinion on RSVP vs. ATM

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 18:03:49 -0700

----- Begin Included Message -----

>From [email-masked] Thu Oct 13 15:02:19 1994
To: Lutz Henckel <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPng Implementation Project
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Oct 1994 12:50:33 BST." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 12:08:31 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Content-Length: 898
X-Lines: 23

In message <[email-masked]>, Lutz Henckel writes:
> 
> 1. From the technical point of view reconsile of Q.2931 and RSVP is an intere
> ssing
>    approach. But from the political point of view do you realy think
>    that the ITU and ATM-Forum are willing to adopt RSVP or corresponding mech
> anisms?
>    I don't. So we have to live with Q.2931 for reservation in ATM subnets and
>    will use RSVP for reservation in interconnected networks relying on Q.2931
> .  

The ITU and ATM Forum isn't running the Internet.  No one organization
is.

It might be perfectly reasonable to run RSVP over a shared VC if ATM
doesn't provide things like predictive QoS allowing better bandwidth
sharing.  It may be economically a better choice to set up a smaller
number of high bandwidth VCs.  This can be done independently of
whether ITU or ATM Forum blesses the practice.

Curtis

----- End Included Message -----