On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 09:51:24PM +0200, Robert Schelander wrote:
> I suppose you want to use AX25 frames as a transport container for the
> the ATM as this would be the only allowed/possible solution for amateur
> radio.
Says who? I've been researching this the better part of a year now, and not
a single sentence made any allusions to the FCC requiring the use of AX.25
for digital links. If this, indeed, were the case, AMTOR, RTTY, G-TOR,
CLOVER, and even CW would be illegal. In fact, the FCC rules even make
provisions for "unspecified digital codes," which ATM ARNI currently falls
under.
I intend on transmitting ATM cells natively. Using AX.25 as an
encapsulation is entirely defeating the purpose of using ATM in the first
place. It's all about the advantages of cell-relay, not frame-relay.
> In this case I'm curious how you will manage to befit from the advantages of
> ATM. (scalability, isochonism, variable bandwitdh.... depending on the
> adoption
> layer of course)
Scalability is obvious. The QoS features of ATM are optional except between
switches and routers. This means that QoS isn't an issue on a bus topology
network, although I have plans for at least attempting QoS.
> Because ATM is only a way to transport data, I'm interested which kind of
> data
> you're planning to transfer when ATM transport finally works.
Anything you want -- it's not for me to decide. For *ME*, however, I intend
on using ATM for researching networking with ATM, for digital audio
applications, and if when I find the time/cash, astronomical CCD imaging and
telescope control.
==========================================================================
KC5TJA/6 | -| TEAM DOLPHIN |-
DM13 | Samuel A. Falvo II
QRP-L #1447 | http://www.dolphin.openprojects.net
Oceanside, CA |......................................................
