Subject: (ION) Re: IPOA & UNI 4.0

From: manujp <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 98 19:27:00 PDT

But it would be more beneficial if IPOA is written to make use of the UNI   
4.0 features as defined in
2331. Optimises things a bit more.

 -Manu

 -----Original Message-----
From: cell-relay-owner [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 9:00 AM
To: cell-relay
Subject: CR: Re: IPOA & UNI 4.0

Shaheen H. Ali wrote:

> If an ATM interface is running UNI 4.0 signaling, will an IPOA client   
or
> server run on it?  Assuming that IPOA does not use any UNI 4.0   
features,
> can IPOA use signaling as if it was a 3.1 compatible interface?

Yes, IPOA should be portable to a UNI 4.0 environment. The RFC doesn't
go into the details of how IPOA should interface with ATM signalling, so
as long as you implement the actual IPOA protocol and procedures
correctly then things should be fine.

As a side note, we licensed IPOA from a third party vendor and it will
interface with a UNI 4.0 stack from the same vendor.

Cheers,
Brian
X-Info: To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
X-Info: 'unsubscribe ion' in the body of the message.

---

From: Albert Manfredi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 11:15:57 -0400

I think that making full use of UNI 4.0 for IPOA would involve a
considerable amount of work, actually. Particularly when it comes to
use of anycast and multicast. As we discussed here some time ago,
the application of UNI 4.0 signaling innovations to provide IP types
of services would represent several I-Ds worth of work, I think,
particularly in MARS and other server-related areas.

It is interesting, to me, to note that the ATMF is pretty much happy
with having the IETF define these IPOA designs. Since many of the
same people participate in both organizations, I suppose this is a
reasonable arrangement. But I can't help feeling that certain
conflicts of interest still are to be expected ...

Bert
[email-masked]