IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com> Wed, 25 October 1995 01:46 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25010; 24 Oct 95 21:46 EDT
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25006; 24 Oct 95 21:46 EDT
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com ([204.249.99.5]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA12172; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 21:17:55 -0400
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18471 for rolc-out; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 21:27:24 -0400
Received: from guelah.nexen.com (guelah.nexen.com [204.249.96.19]) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA18459 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 21:27:21 -0400
Received: from hubbub.cisco.com (hubbub.cisco.com [198.92.30.32]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA12104 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 21:16:11 -0400
Received: from puli.cisco.com (puli.cisco.com [171.69.1.174]) by hubbub.cisco.com (8.6.12/CISCO.GATE.1.1) with SMTP id SAA07085; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 18:23:13 -0700
Message-Id: <199510250123.SAA07085@hubbub.cisco.com>
To: Andrew Smith <asmith@baynetworks.com>
cc: rolc@nexen.com
Subject: Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rolc-apr-00.txt
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 24 Oct 95 18:19:42 PDT." <9510250119.AA22267@milliways-le0.engwest>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 18:23:12 PDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.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/

Andrew,

> > 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 ...". 

Ok. Seems that at least two of us are in agreement on this.

Yakov.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email