jyy at merit.edu
Tue Aug 30 15:44:38 UTC 1994
>Perhaps. My biggest concern was that the Merit paper would be construed as
>the -only- way an ATM NAP would work. They clearly did not indicate there
>were potential choices nor did they indicate the assumptions that were made
>for their test.
Bill, now I doubt if you read the paper carefully or not.
First of all, this paper does not design the ATM-NAP architecture BUT is a
ROUTING DESIGN for the planned ATM-NAP architecture. Please don't confuse
these two different issues.
For the planned ATM-NAP architecture (i.e. RFC1490/AAL5) with the current
availability of the RS's (i.e. SUN) ATM interface product, what other choices
do we have to connect the RS and do NAP routing at this time frame?
More information about the NANOG