Re: LANE 1.0 vs. RFC1577?

Andrew Smith <asmith@baynetworks.com> Fri, 31 March 1995 23:01 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14490; 31 Mar 95 18:01 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14486; 31 Mar 95 18:01 EST
Received: from matmos.hpl.hp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17887; 31 Mar 95 18:01 EST
Received: by matmos.hpl.hp.com (1.37.109.10G/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1SU) id AA112102512; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 12:41:52 -0800
Errors-To: atmpost@matmos.hpl.hp.com
X-Orig-Sender: atmpost@matmos.hpl.hp.com
X-Info: Submissions to ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@matmos.hpl.hp.com
X-Info: Archives for ip-atm via ftp.hep.net:~ftp/lists-archive/atm
X-Loop: ATM CLP.bit ON
Precedence: bulk
Received: from lightning.synoptics.com by matmos.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.10G/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1SU) id AA111792504; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 12:41:44 -0800
Received: from BayNetworks.COM ([134.177.1.95]) by lightning.synoptics.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18405; Fri, 31 Mar 95 12:40:31 PST
Received: from milliways (milliways-sbf0.synoptics.com) by BayNetworks.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA28106; Fri, 31 Mar 95 12:39:05 PST
Received: by milliways (4.1/2.0N) id AA20739; Fri, 31 Mar 95 12:34:29 PST
Message-Id: <9503312034.AA20739@milliways>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 12:34:29 PST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Andrew Smith <asmith@baynetworks.com>
To: ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com
Subject: Re: LANE 1.0 vs. RFC1577?
Cc: cameronr@bogart.colorado.edu

> From atmpost@matmos.hpl.hp.com Fri Mar 31 12:21:58 1995
> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 12:30:34 -0700 (MST)
> From: Neill Cameron <cameronr@bogart.Colorado.EDU>
> Subject: LANE 1.0 vs. RFC1577?
> To: ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com
> Content-Length: 1247

> I just returned from Interop '95 in Vegas, and see a lot of vendors providing
> ATM NIC device driver and UNI switch support for The ATM Forum's Lan
> Emulation (even 'tho it's still draft form to date)

LAN Emulation 1.0 specification was ratified by ATM Forum membership a few
weeks back and is now official. Talk to ATM Forum (info@atmforum.com) to 
get a hold of a copy if you need it.

>, and RFC1577/RFC1755, and
> RFC1483. Why would a user choose to use one of the RFC's when LANE 1.0
> seems to deliver at the MAC level all of the needed services?

That's the $1000000000 question .....

> Regards,
>   -=-neill
> 

Andrew


********************************************************************************
Andrew Smith					TEL:	+1 408 764 1574
Technology Synergy Unit				FAX:	+1 408 988 5525
Bay Networks, Inc.				E-m:	asmith@baynetworks.com
Santa Clara, CA
********************************************************************************



> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> R. Neill Cameron		        /\    /\          /\
> Graduate Research Assistant            /.\ /\/..\    /\  /..\
> Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program/....\  /..\/....\
> University of Colorado at Boulder    /....\/      \/.../      \
> School of Engineering OT2-42        /      \      /   /        \
> Campus Box 530                     /        \        /          \
> Boulder, Colorado 80309-0530      /          \      /            \
>                                [14 thousand foot mountains with snow 
>                                 capped peaks - use your imagination :) ]
> Voice:303.786.0905
> Email:cameronr@bogart.colorado.edu
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> 
> 
>