Subject: Re: IP Broadcast

From: [email-masked] (Hiroshi Esaki)
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 12:41:05 -0400

mwg> The ATM folks think it's so simple that it
    mwg> will have no market, while many IP folks want nothing more complex
    mwg> from ATM than FIFO queueing with big buffers (which would be a
    mwg> satisfactory implementation of UBR.)

   jh> i have nothing against simplicity, but you make implementing ubr too
   jh> simple.  even in case of ubr, one would like to have at least some
   jh> degree of fairness and to avoid dropping of cells, unless you at the
   jh> same time drop all cells of the same frame.  large buffers alone don't
   jh> provide this.

FIFO with big buffer will be faur for every body, I think. 
Also, the significant cell loss for UBR is kind of mis-enginnering. 
This is competely the same in the Ethernet. 

Hiroshi Esaki

---

From: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 21:15:36 +0200

are you suggesting that the current internet is fair for everybody?  my
experience is contrary.  the current internet favours those who send
more and don't care about congestion.  i would like the ubr give fair
share for both tcp and udp streams, which can't be accomplished just by
big buffers.

-- juha