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