Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net> writes:
> i think (i don't pretend to know all that much about the iso stuff or
> atm, but i am reading) that one *MAJOR* difference between atm and ip
> (and maybe iso as well) is that that ipv6 works with *all* the
> existing hardware that's already doing ipv4.  iso and atm require
> other hardware.  that seems like major selling point to me.

Ahem.

ATM is a VC based protocol. "X.25 for Fiber". It inherently sucks. It
also doesn't even pretend to be TCP/IP

CLNP wasn't inherently awful but it wasn't that great and now it is dead.

Perry