Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:06:12 -0400 (EDT) From: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@Sarnoff.COM> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Frame relay and ATM support: virtual interface per vpi? Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960626120017.2433A-100000@terra> In-Reply-To: <199606261532.IAA20514@premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Doesn't it seem that if you do the VIF per VCI model, you're > restricting yourself to having only a single VC to any given > destination? In other words, it seems that this model would preclude > my being able to have multiple VCs to another host. not at all. you can have lots of vc's per destination. The reason we've set up to support so many VCs is to support many VCs per host. Again, you have to move your thinking around a bit from the current networking model. Once you start doing that, however, the particular way to plug ATM into the BSD networking architecture is not as obvious as it first seems. We're even looking at having user-mode striped ATM connections between applications, and boy does this make for some changes ... > Why might you want to do this? Think of having VCs with different > qualities of service for different traffic types. This might not make > sense in the environment that MINI is designed for, though. no, bruce, you're on the money. MINI is designed to function in a VC-rich environment, where you might have (e.g.) one open VC per open file on a file server. This is in contrast to the current ATM world in which ALL network traffic from a host goes on a very small number of VCs. Two years ago one of the commercial ATM interfaces available only supported 10 VCs -- total! ron
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.960626120017.2433A-100000>