From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jun 26 10:57:03 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA24819
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from plains.nodak.edu (tinguely@plains.NoDak.edu [134.129.111.64])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA24814
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from tinguely@localhost) by plains.nodak.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id MAA28470 for hackers@freebsd.org; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:56:55 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:56:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@plains.nodak.edu>
Message-Id: <199606261756.MAA28470@plains.nodak.edu>
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Frame relay and ATM support: virtual interface per vpi?
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I guess I am confused to what scope this VC and address is to be associated.
I assumed this was talking about IP over FR/ATM. 

It does not make any sense that another local native ATM application to need
to do a VC/address lookup. As I understand things (hidden disclaimer) that
it was up to the application to manage interleaving of messages down a
particular VC, so we would not arbitrarilly place information from different
appications down a VC. In a simular thread, is there a generic way to access
native ATM services like the IP inetd?

--mark.