On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Caitlin Bestler <caitlinb@rp.asomi.net> > > > Given the source interface, the *meaning* of an IP header is not > > supposed to be dependent on the routing tables. .. > > By contrast, the meaning of an ATM circuit is dependent on the context > > in which it was established. There is no expectation that there is any > > meaning to this circuit identifier beyond those imparted when the > > circuit was created. > > Yes, but that's just a minor engineering decisions, i.e. the use of a > non-global namespace for circuit ID's. It's easy to imagine an ATM-like system > in which circuit ID's are global in scope. > > The real crucial *architectural* difference is in the fact that there is > per-flow state, along with the need to set up state before the packets can > flow. distributing routing information isn't per-flow - it's per-aggregated destination - but routing state does still have to be distributed before packets can flow. 'local scope' is just bigger in an IP network, that's all. L. <http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood@ee.surrey.ac.uk>