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

[Andrew Smith <[e-mail]>]

> From [e-mail] Tue Oct 24 17:13:09 1995
> To: [e-mail] (Andrew Smith)
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rolc-apr-00.txt 
> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 17:09:30 PDT
> From: Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>

Yakov,

> > > The belief that ATM SVCs are more desirable than multiple IP
> > > hops is one that is in line with the objectives of ROLC.
> > 
> > I disagree: I thought the objective of ROLC was to provide a protocol mechanism 
> > which would *allow* for shortcut VCCs. There is nothing in the ROLC charter (and
> > there is certainly nothing in the NHRP draft) about whether that is always 
> > the desirable outcome or not. The charter needs updating if you think that this
> > assumption is an implicit part of ROLC's work.
> 
> While it would be hard to say that the ATM SVCs are *always* more desirable,
> I think it would be fair to say that there are QoS requirements where ATM SVC
> would be preferred to IP hop-by-hop resource reservations.  It all depends
> on the QoS requirements.

You are missing my point: Dilip asserted that "ATM SVCs are more desirable ...".
All I am saying is that "ATM SVCs may be more desirable in some cases ...". 
It would be useful to know whether other rolc listeners are assuming what Dilip
asserted to be true or not.

BTW, this is really an int-serv or ip-atm issue just as much as a rolc issue.


Andrew


********************************************************************************
Andrew Smith					TEL:	[phone]
Technology Synergy Unit				FAX:	[phone]
Bay Networks, Inc.				E-m:	[e-mail]
Santa Clara, CA
********************************************************************************