What's the bid deal about deterministic behaviour of routing technology for voice service? Dima Mike Trest writes:
Dima,
Good observation. However, I did not miss Vadim's point. It is well stated. But I would like to see a clearer path to deterministic behaviour in routing technology before we use it for integrated voice service, as an example. "No worse than ATM" is not a good enough starting point.
Indeed, today we use ATM to transport IP traffic and also multiple technologies including some non-ATM stuff like broadcast video/voice, laser disk playback, Video Conferencing, and ordinary T1 AMI/D4 PSTN voice service. I wonder, however, if an IP address (even at terabit speeds) will help to sort out which DS0 is going to which IXC. Likewise, we should never think that IP traffic will ever be limited to any specific L1/L2 technology. Because I can do these things with ATM today does not mean that better IP routing engines are not needed!
I mean no disrespect to Vadim. I think is work is good. I actually hope we do see better IP routing technology. If the resultant product is deterministic at L3, ATMnet would probably be one of the first to sign up to give it a try.
..mike..
At 11:37 AM 11/22/96 -0500, Dima Volodin wrote:
Mike Trest writes:
Even though ATMnet has been delivering IP-over-ATM to commercial users longer than any other provider, we never claim that the Internet should exist *EXCLUSVELY* as ATM technology. Quite the contrary, we (and our customers) see the technical and economic power of ATM technology in the ability to support fully integrated services.
It's either you missed another point or I invented this another point in my mind - a large chunk of Vadim's paper is devoted to the topic of pure IP's being no worse that ATM for "integrated" services.
Mike Trest, ATMNET Voice: 619 643-1805
Dima
Mike Trest, ATMNET Voice: 619 643-1805 5440 Morehouse Drive Fax: 619 643-1801 San Diego, CA USA 92121 EMAIL: trest@ATMnet.net