IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rolc-apr-00.txt

Andrew Smith <asmith@baynetworks.com> Tue, 24 October 1995 21:39 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22418; 24 Oct 95 17:39 EDT
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22413; 24 Oct 95 17:39 EDT
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com ([204.249.99.5]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA10728; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 17:14:42 -0400
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA16670 for rolc-out; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 17:25:26 -0400
Received: from nexen.nexen.com (nexen.nexen.com [204.249.96.18]) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA16661 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 17:25:23 -0400
Received: from lightning.synoptics.com (lightning.synoptics.com [134.177.3.18]) by nexen.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA25963 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 17:24:25 -0400
Received: from pobox.synoptics.com ([134.177.1.95]) by lightning.synoptics.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21873; Tue, 24 Oct 95 14:21:19 PDT
Received: from milliways-le0.engwest (milliways-le0.synoptics.com) by pobox.synoptics.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA25315; Tue, 24 Oct 95 14:22:40 PDT
Received: by milliways-le0.engwest (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21967; Tue, 24 Oct 95 14:22:39 PDT
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 14:22:39 PDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Andrew Smith <asmith@baynetworks.com>
Message-Id: <9510242122.AA21967@milliways-le0.engwest>
To: kandlur@watson.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rolc-apr-00.txt
Cc: rolc@nexen.com
X-Orig-Sender: owner-rolc@nexen.com
Precedence: bulk
X-Info: Submissions to rolc@nexen.com
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to rolc-request@nexen.com
X-Info: Archives for rolc via ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf-mail-archive/rolc/

Dilip,

>  The implication throughout is that an SVC is needed to support QoS.
> 
> The implication is that QoS requirements would be considered as a
> guide to setup SVCs.  Yes, there is also a belief that an SVC would
> provide better QoS (e.g. delay) since it avoids IP level handling
> costs at intermediate nodes.

I don't think we should be making assumptions like that in an architectural
document: that is an implementation issue. I certainly know of some ATM switches
with higher latency (under some traffic conditions) than routers .... :-)

> -- Dilip.
> 

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
********************************************************************************

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email