From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jun 26 08:34:11 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA15153
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 08:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU (root@premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.33.172])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA15137
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 08:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU (localhost.Berkeley.EDU [127.0.0.1]) by premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id IAA20514; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 08:32:47 -0700
Message-Id: <199606261532.IAA20514@premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.7 5/3/96
To: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@sarnoff.com>
cc: JULIAN Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com>, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Frame relay and ATM support: virtual interface per vpi? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jun 1996 21:56:00 EDT."
             <Pine.SUN.3.91.960625212948.28491B-100000@terra> 
From: bmah@cs.berkeley.edu (Bruce A. Mah)
Reply-to: bmah@cs.berkeley.edu
X-Face: g~c`.{#4q0"(V*b#g[i~rXgm*w;:nMfz%_RZLma)UgGN&=j`5vXoU^@n5<Pi&akO)o^8;[r
 %l(8ZHlbF`dD>v4:OO)c["!w)nD/!!~e4Sj7LiT'6*wZ83454H""lb{CC%T37O!!'S$S&D}sem7I[A
 2V%N&+
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 08:32:42 -0700
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

"Ron G. Minnich" writes:

> No, one might as well not. Making a case for a virtual interface for each
> ATM VCI has no correspondance to an interface per arp table entry.
> Ethernet and atm are really very different, given the packet vs. vc model.
> You may find what i found, that trying to screw the vc model into the
> existing bsd net layer gets somewhat weird. To date, most companies
> selling software for atm have made the atm interface work like an ethernet
> interface, only a little different. Not a great idea, long term. 

I'm jumping into this discussion a little late, but:

Doesn't it seem that if you do the VIF per VCI model, you're 
restricting yourself to having only a single VC to any given 
destination?  In other words, it seems that this model would preclude 
my being able to have multiple VCs to another host.

Why might you want to do this?  Think of having VCs with different 
qualities of service for different traffic types.  This might not make 
sense in the environment that MINI is designed for, though.

Bruce.