Subject: A question on PPP/AAL5

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 21:06:35 -0400

Hi,
     I've a question on which version of ATM signaling should be used in
svc enviroment for PPP/ATM.  In "draft-ietf-pppext-aal5-06.txt", it states
only Q.2931; but in FRC 1755, ATM Forum UNI 31/40 is assumed.

Thanks,

Ming Chan
Bellcore

---

From: William Stoye <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:07:36 +-100

Surely it should say something like

  here is the BLLI information
  there should be no BHLI
  all other issues such as which variant of ATM signalling, use of ILMI,
  QoS, bearer capabilities, traffic class etc. are left unspecified and 
  are implementation/installation decisions.

PPP should simply assume the presence of a valid, working signalling service. 
It would be a mistake to tie PPP to one particular signalling variant.
All variants carry BLLI end to end - so far! (although the wording could be clearer for Q.2931's
description of BLLI) 

Is this the intent of the current draft?

--William Stoye

----------
From: 	[email-masked][SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent: 	09 June 1998 02:06
To: 	[email-masked]
Cc: 	[email-masked]
Subject: 	A question on PPP/AAL5

Hi,

Thanks,

Ming Chan
Bellcore