home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
- Path: sparky!uunet!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!news
- From: robelr@ucs.indiana.edu (Allen Robel)
- Subject: Re: Future of IP routers
- Message-ID: <BtnCIr.8s3@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
- Sender: news@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: mythos.ucs.indiana.edu
- Reply-To: robelr@mythos.ucs.indiana.edu
- Organization: Indiana University
- References: <1992Aug27.081252.11349@ccsun.strath.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:35:14 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <1992Aug27.081252.11349@ccsun.strath.ac.uk>
- craa85@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ( D.W.Stevenson) writes:
- > The addressing issues for ATM still haven't been resolved yet
- > but I imagine it will be possible to address an individual service and
- hence
- > enforce policy restrictions.
- >
-
- OK, I can see how this would work. But, how do you (or others)
- see segmenting the address space to reflect various service
- offerings (e.g. 900 calls, 800 calls in todays phone system).
- If services are not somehow reflected in addresses, and at
- a much higher granularity than that in the example I gave above,
- we will be faced with having to either build very large
- filters to accomodate every possible connection an end-user
- might want to make, or build smaller, more restrictive, filters
- which say, in effect, "Allow connections to X, Y, Z but deny
- everything else." Much more useful would be the ability to
- wildcard parts of the address that represented specific service
- offerings (i.e. 1???1112222 might mean all interactive video services).
- This somehow seems unrealistic though. Someone please straighten me
- out if I'm missing something...
-
- --
- Allen Robel robelr@mythos.ucs.indiana.edu
- University Computing Services ROBELR@IUJADE.BITNET
- Network Research & Planning voice: (812)855-7171
- Indiana University FAX: (812)855-8299
-