Re: [PWE3] TDM draft comparison

[Stephen Thomas <stephen.thomas@waterscreek.com>]

I'm not enough of a TDM or ATM expert to provide credible details, but it 
seems like it ought to be possible to create a protocol header that is 
sufficiently flexible to accommodate both encapsulation methods. 
Conceptually, include the ATM-style fields in the protocol header but add a 
flag that indicates whether they are used (or set them to zero for 
non-use). There is a lot of precedent for this (see UDP checksum), and, 
ultimately, it allows the market to decide whether or not the additional 
capabilities are justified.

At 03:52 PM 2002-06-13 +0100, Tim.Frost@Zarlink.Com wrote:


>SUMMARY
>-------
>The whole argument in the thread basically comes down to the first point:
>the rationale for including ATM style formats in the encapsulation.
>
>Yaakov Stein has a good point, in that these are tried and tested
>technologies, which have been developed over several years. Against this,
>it introduces significant extra cost in the inter-working function, in the
>shape of an ATM SAR function. Similar criticisms were aimed at draft-pate
>at the Salt Lake City meeting, with the contention that it introduced
>SONET formatting that was not required unless inter-working with SONET
>networks.


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3