RE: stds-802-16: 802.16, not 802, will deal with "ATM vs. IP"

[Marianna Goldhammer <mariannag@breezecom.co.il>]

[Notice: It is the policy of 802.16 to treat messages posted here as non-confidential.]

    Hi Jay,

    You have written nice words and I hope that the 802.16 will equally
give solutions for IP/ATM systems. 
    Lets see that the slogan "ATM is good also for IP" will not be the
motto of the 802.16 MAC drafting process, with the well known result:
chopped IP packets to fit the ATM payload!

   Marianna

>    
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jay Klein [SMTP:jay@ensemblecom.com]
> Sent:	Tue, April 20, 1999 3:06 AM
> To:	'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-16@ieee.org
> Subject:	RE: stds-802-16: 802.16, not 802, will deal with "ATM
> vs. IP"
> 
> Basically I agree with Roger that it is 802.16 which has to deal with
> the ATM/IP issue and 802.14 is an excellent example of a standard
> under the 802 umbrella which took an ATM approach. However let us be
> very careful here as we try to learn from mistakes of the past:
> (1) There are no winners in religion wars (this is not StarWars) and
> "ATM vs. IP" sounds to me like a crusade. Let us learn from past
> experience. The 802.16 group tasks mainly include PHY/MAC
> standardization. It seems to me this crusade is a waste of time. The
> group should invest their time on how to accommodate any access
> technology as solutions worldwide may differ. The 802.14 example could
> be used again - MCNS (IP oriented) had to bridge a gap that the ATM
> choice of 802.14 left behind...
> (2) There are companies which have chosen ATM as their access
> technology. There are companies which have chosen IP as their access
> technology. From this point it becomes a "religion" and as in any
> "religious" war sometimes there is a need for legends in order to
> serve the purpose of the war and as in all legends they have some
> basic true story behind it. One example is "802 wants IP" which may
> conceal a basic fact like "my company wants IP". Of course we can find
> similar examples for "my company wants ATM". 
> Legends are history. We are dealing with the future here. An agnostic
> air interface may be the right answer as it puts a war to rest.
> Jay Klein 
> Ensemble Communications 
>   
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Roger B. Marks [ mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org ] 
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 1999 2:26 PM 
> To: stds-802-16@ieee.org 
> Subject: stds-802-16: 802.16, not 802, will deal with "ATM vs. IP" 
> 
> 
> [Notice: It is the policy of 802.16 to treat messages posted here as
> non-confidential.] 
> [I've revised the subject line to reflect the subject. The thread I'm 
> replying to is 
> < http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/arc/802-16list/msg00032.html
> >.] 
> Steve Farrell wrote: 
> >Hi gang, 
> > 
> >I would like to continue this line of dialog because I think that
> this is 
> >important...regarding Marianna's responses... 
> I agree completely. It's time we get this issue out and on the table.
> Now 
> that we have a contribution submission process, everyone will have a
> chance 
> to make suggestions and offer supporting documentation. 
> 
> 
> >1. ATM vs. IP: 
> >Let me step back and ask a dumb question, if IEEE 802 would not
> accept an ATM 
> >based addressing mode and this group defines an IP only based
> addressing mode, 
> >than the standard will most likely be completely incompatible with
> the lion's 
> >share of the LMDS equipment deployments over the next 3 years.  Does
> that make 
> >sense for us? Does this group run the risk of creating a standard
> that noone 
> >adopts? 
> > 
> >Is everyone in agreement that ATM vs. IP over the air may fall
> outside the 
> >scope 
> >of this group? 
> 
> 
> 802.16 will deal with the ATM vs. IP issue on its merits. 802 rules
> will 
> not make our decision for us. 
> Take a look at 802.14: it's developing a spec based on ATM frames, in
> spite 
> of the fact that the DOCSIS spec is IP packet based. Regardless of
> whether 
> or not that's a good idea or not, they are going ahead with it, and
> 802 is 
> not constraining them. 
> I've gotten confirmation from 802 SEC Chair Jim Carlo that this is
> 802.16's 
> decision to make. Let's follow Marianna and Steve's lead: let's start 
> deciding! 
> Roger 
> 
> 
> Dr. Roger B. Marks  < mailto:marks@nist.gov > 
> Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access 
> National Wireless Electronic Systems Testbed (N-WEST) <
> http://nwest.nist.gov > 
> National Institute of Standards and Technology/Boulder, CO 
> phone: 1-303-497-3037  fax: 1-303-497-7828