Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:36:27 +0800
From: "Xingang Liang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <003c01c1577d$b078a670$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| From the perspective of packet-switching technology,IP and ATM belong
| to the same category,that is ,they all use the packet
This is the mistake in your reasoning. ATM is more like ethernet, which
both do packets, ... (or even SONET, or HDLC, or ...).
IP also uses packets (as does UDP, CLNP, ...) they do end to end transmission,
using whatever underlying layer happens to be available (including ATM).
If you wanted to, you could ask why ATM didn't take over the world, and
drive out all the ethernet, and everything else - if it had, then perhaps
(and just perhaps) people could run applications directly over ATM. But
as long as there are other technologies being used, a protocol that can
run over all of them is required, so those who are connected to ATM can
communicate with those connected to ethernets, and other link layers.
Comparing IP to ATM just makes no sense.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
