Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 14:51:01 -0700 From: bmah@cs.berkeley.edu (Bruce A. Mah) To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@plains.nodak.edu> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Frame relay and ATM support: virtual interface per vpi? Message-ID: <199606262151.OAA22537@premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:56:55 CDT." <199606261756.MAA28470@plains.nodak.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Tinguely writes: > 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. Well, I was thinking about running IP over ATM, and that the space of VCIDs includes all VCs at a single end system (in the same way that port numbers are for TCP or UDP). I'm not sure what address you're thinking about. > 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? Now for native ATM applications, you're absolutely right...the application has exclusive use of the VC and it alone controls multiplexing of cells (or AAL frames or whatever) down its VC(s). I don't know off-hand what the analog is for inetd. On XUNET II (experimental ATM WAN I worked on), when you wanted a VC to someone else, you passed the signalling software a string that said what service you wanted to connect to on the remote side. Of course this was pre-ATM Forum, so, well...standards? What standards? Bruce.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606262151.OAA22537>