Subject: Re: Critically compare the congestion control on TCP/IP and ATM?

From: Sean Doran <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:20:50 +0100 (CET)

Dan Grossman writes:

| ATM has a carefully defined traffic management architecture. 

Yes, that's its problem.

From issue 10 of "New Carrier" (http://www.totaltele.com/newcarrier", p 22:

 ... the past several years' debates over the relative technical
 merits of [the] Internet Protocol versus other network technologies
 like ATM, often missed the point.  IP and its associated technologies
 haven't taken over because they produce a brilliantly efficient network,
 but because they together seem capable of creating a dynamic
 openness for the network economy; this is because of, and not
 despite, a simplicity and a lack of carrier-style attributes.

	Sean.

---

From: "Getty Verma" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 20:32:02 -0800

The biggest worry to me is that depite all the promises offered and realities
measured in the labs on all this MPLS, IP switching etc etc -- Internet
protocol cannot provide the QoS  for voice and video multicasting with 5 Nines
reliability. IETF and Carrier Class 5 Nines reliability in a bulletproof
manner are like 2 cities still poles apart. Efficiency feathers went to IP-
cannot we be a little more honest and praise the Optical media and the Fibres
since even POS needs layer 1 optical PHYs.

Traffic management is another name of 99.99999% reliabiity at the end of the
day !

Just a comment , we are comparing apples with Oranges !

thx
getty