Valdis;
> > I'm routing based on circuit ID. Current RSVP does not.
>
> Like I said - RSVP is *NOT* circuit based.
You don't have to make the confusion on terminology even worse by
insisting on youres.
Circuit ID is introduced by Noel w.r.t. ATM and you can use
your favourite wording for RSVP.
> > You misunderstand the problem.
>
> Not in the slightest. I understand RSVP - what I objected to was the
> statement that RSVP is circuit based.
As Noel said:
: It's easy to imagine an ATM-like system
: in which circuit ID's are global in scope.A
we are discussing on circuit-ID-like things of ATM-like systems.
In RSVP terminology, flows are identified by addresses and port numbers,
which is the circuit-ID-like thing.
That RSVP does not have circuit-like thing is fine, as long as there
is circuit-ID-like thing.
> > The problem is that a protocol to tweak the control of an underlying
> > bandwidth allocation is pretty useless if there isn't enough bandwidth
> > to tweak.
>
> I'm aware of that.
Then, there is no reason to insist on detailed terminology of useles
protocols such as ATM and RSVP.
Masataka Ohta
