Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:2951 comp.os.linux.misc:20709 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!Starbase.NeoSoft.COM!nobody From: peter@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: source of TCP/IP (was I hope this wont ignite a major flame ...) Date: 31 Jul 1994 14:34:31 -0500 Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 684 5969 Lines: 13 Message-ID: <31guc7$g6p@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> References: <3163r7$440@quagga.ru.ac.za> <31bl91$3b9@cesdis1.gsfc.nasa.gov> <CtqrFJ.IM5@calcite.rhyolite.com> <31fd07$6pq@cesdis1.gsfc.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: starbase.neosoft.com In article <31fd07$6pq@cesdis1.gsfc.nasa.gov>, Donald Becker <becker@cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote: >Wait a minute: that's not what I said. I *don't* think ATM is a good >solution. I just don't think it going to fail for the right technical >reasons (missing protocol details, hard unsolved datarate issues, etc) >but rather it will never be considered because people can't run their >existing network applications on it. Why can't they? If I can run an X application over a link that's got X.25 and PPP sections in the middle, why would *anyone* have the slightest difficulty running ANY networking application over ATM?