[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
stds-802-16: ATM and IP in 802.14
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: stds-802-16: ATM and IP in 802.14
- From: "Roger B. Marks" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 06:35:03 -0600
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org@fixme
- Sender: email@example.com
[Notice: It is the policy of 802.16 to treat messages posted here as non-confidential.]
I asked 802 Vice Chair Paul Nikolich, who has been closely involved in
802.14, for his thoughts on the ATP/IP issue from an 802.14 perspective.
Here is his reply; my questions are below.
>I will answer your questions in the order you asked them.
>1) I agree with Jim--it is up to 802.16 to determine what the best layer
>two 'wrapper' (variable length packet or fixed length cell) to use based on
>the requirements of the system. 802.14 initially adopted both packets and
>cells based MAC, but ultimately decided cells were the best solution for
>their particular requirement.
>2) 802.14 has not 'given up' but put the cell based MAC on the shelf,
>waiting for vendors/providers to establish enough interest to continue the
>3) 802.14 has put the cell based MAC on the shelf because the core group
>of cell based proponents dwidled to nearly zero, while there are dozens of
>vendors planning to build or building packet based products. 802.14 is
>simply reacting to market conditions.
>One of the keys to a successful standards development activity is a
>motivated, organized, and skilled body of WG members. Assembling this kind
>of a group is usually driven by the market interest in that particular
>You are welcome to post these comments to your reflector.
>At 10:58 AM 4/20/99 -0600, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>>802.16 has been discussing the issue of ATM vs. IP. Could you provide some
>>(1) I have ensured people that 802 is not going to push people into an
>>IP-centric solution rather than an ATM-centric solution. Jim Carlo agreed
>>and said I that 802.14 is a good example of the freedom of a Working Group
>>to go either way. Do you agree? Jim suggested that I ask you.
>>(2) Is it fair to say that 802.14 has given up on the idea of an
>>(3) If so, is there a simple reason why? It might be educational for us.
>>If you like, you can reply to our reflector (firstname.lastname@example.org). If you
>>reply to me, I may post your comments to the reflector, unless you ask me