This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Asynchronous Transfer Mode article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Virtual channel identifier page were merged into Asynchronous Transfer Mode. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2013-01-04) |
The P-NNI standard specifies the exchange of link state information, similar to what IS-IS and OSPF do. It has more levels of hierarchy, and more metrics, but the basic approach is similar.
However, it does not specify the routing algorithm, i.e., the algorithm that picks the path for a particular destination. The reason is that this is not necessary; SVC setup uses source routing, so there is no need for the switches to agree on what the chosen route will be for a given destination. Connectionless switches require agreement to avoid loops, but ATM SVC setup does not. So the standard leaves this aspect open to implementers' choice.
Obviously, it's to be expected that some algorithm similar to Dijkstra's algorithm will be used to determine the path for a particular connection, but it's not correct to say that the standard "uses the same shortest path algorithm used by OSPF..." Paul Koning 17:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The article says "To admit a call first a VPC has to be established. This will guarantee the correct routing from end to end." This is incorrect. In the signaling for SVC setup, the route is specified (see my comment above on P-NNI). It does not require a pre-existing VPC, for routing or for any other purpose. A call is admitted if the admission control algorithm decides to admit the call, normally because the resources the call asks for (in the signalling messages) are available.
A network implementer can certainly use a VPC as a trunk, and route a new SVC over such a trunk if the source route allows it, but there's no requirement to do so; if a network does that, it's an internal matter that is invisible to the user. Paul Koning 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There doesn't appear to be a clear reason for the statement "ATM switches can also operate at OC-192 (STM64) rates." to be part of a paragraph dealing with ATM over IP and IP routing (not ATM switching). The relevance of this statement should either be qualified with additional information, or if it is indeed dealing with an unrelated issue, put into a seperate paragraph and elaborated upon. I have removed it for the moment. -- Het 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Dgtsyb, you're confused about and confusing several completely different issues in this reasoning of yours: I.150 only uses lower case in the title which is simply ITU-T's house style for titles.
It is quite obvious that User:Dgtsyb is not confused about these issues, as the editor just laid out explicitly and correctly the very good reasons that are used to establish proper and common noun usage not only in telecommunications, but the English language. The editor's explanations also carry weight based on his substantial and knowledgeable contributions to many of these articles. Not following these criteria is absurd and would be controversial no matter what some reference text might use. It should be noted that many publications, for example, also incorrectly don't capitalize Internet out of some principle, but we still insist on proper usage on WP. The capitalization of ATM and ISDN fully spelled out titles is very notable and in-line with all of our proper noun usage on WP. Kbrose ( talk) 16:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Late to the party, I'm not going to bother responding to all the points above. Suffice to say, in my experience the common usage of Asynchronous Transfer Mode is always capitalized; I see no reason why Wikipedia should be the exception. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at Proper noun. Asynchronous Transfer Mode is a specific standard and can only be thought of as a proper noun and must, therefore, be capitalised. As one cannot guarantee that other authors have correctly followed syntactical requirements, one should not base their argument on common usage. One should instead base their argument on syntactical principals. From this perspective, only capitalised ATM is permissible. This approach may seem contrary to WP philosophy, however, it is the only way to resolve conflicts such as this where common usage is often grammatically incorrect.Internet/internet, as mentioned earlier, being another example. -- Spuzzdawg ( talk) 22:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
At present the title is in lower case and the lead is in Title Case. I beleive ATM is a proper noun like Integrated Services Digital Network, Frame Relay, Multiprotocol Label Switching and Ethernet and so prefer Title Case. At a minimum we need to be self-consistent. If there is no more discussion, I will request a move to change the title to match the lead. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Some call this protocol "A Terrible Mistake". See http://www.clock.org/~fair/opinion/atm-is-bad.html Emersion ( talk) 11:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved: A rough concensus not to move the article( non-admin closure) Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 18:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Asynchronous Transfer Mode → Asynchronous transfer mode – See discussion 10 years ago, in Talk:Asynchronous Transfer Mode# lowercase correct about whether or not have the title with capital letters. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Asynchronous Transfer Mode article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Virtual channel identifier page were merged into Asynchronous Transfer Mode. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2013-01-04) |
The P-NNI standard specifies the exchange of link state information, similar to what IS-IS and OSPF do. It has more levels of hierarchy, and more metrics, but the basic approach is similar.
However, it does not specify the routing algorithm, i.e., the algorithm that picks the path for a particular destination. The reason is that this is not necessary; SVC setup uses source routing, so there is no need for the switches to agree on what the chosen route will be for a given destination. Connectionless switches require agreement to avoid loops, but ATM SVC setup does not. So the standard leaves this aspect open to implementers' choice.
Obviously, it's to be expected that some algorithm similar to Dijkstra's algorithm will be used to determine the path for a particular connection, but it's not correct to say that the standard "uses the same shortest path algorithm used by OSPF..." Paul Koning 17:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The article says "To admit a call first a VPC has to be established. This will guarantee the correct routing from end to end." This is incorrect. In the signaling for SVC setup, the route is specified (see my comment above on P-NNI). It does not require a pre-existing VPC, for routing or for any other purpose. A call is admitted if the admission control algorithm decides to admit the call, normally because the resources the call asks for (in the signalling messages) are available.
A network implementer can certainly use a VPC as a trunk, and route a new SVC over such a trunk if the source route allows it, but there's no requirement to do so; if a network does that, it's an internal matter that is invisible to the user. Paul Koning 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There doesn't appear to be a clear reason for the statement "ATM switches can also operate at OC-192 (STM64) rates." to be part of a paragraph dealing with ATM over IP and IP routing (not ATM switching). The relevance of this statement should either be qualified with additional information, or if it is indeed dealing with an unrelated issue, put into a seperate paragraph and elaborated upon. I have removed it for the moment. -- Het 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Dgtsyb, you're confused about and confusing several completely different issues in this reasoning of yours: I.150 only uses lower case in the title which is simply ITU-T's house style for titles.
It is quite obvious that User:Dgtsyb is not confused about these issues, as the editor just laid out explicitly and correctly the very good reasons that are used to establish proper and common noun usage not only in telecommunications, but the English language. The editor's explanations also carry weight based on his substantial and knowledgeable contributions to many of these articles. Not following these criteria is absurd and would be controversial no matter what some reference text might use. It should be noted that many publications, for example, also incorrectly don't capitalize Internet out of some principle, but we still insist on proper usage on WP. The capitalization of ATM and ISDN fully spelled out titles is very notable and in-line with all of our proper noun usage on WP. Kbrose ( talk) 16:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Late to the party, I'm not going to bother responding to all the points above. Suffice to say, in my experience the common usage of Asynchronous Transfer Mode is always capitalized; I see no reason why Wikipedia should be the exception. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at Proper noun. Asynchronous Transfer Mode is a specific standard and can only be thought of as a proper noun and must, therefore, be capitalised. As one cannot guarantee that other authors have correctly followed syntactical requirements, one should not base their argument on common usage. One should instead base their argument on syntactical principals. From this perspective, only capitalised ATM is permissible. This approach may seem contrary to WP philosophy, however, it is the only way to resolve conflicts such as this where common usage is often grammatically incorrect.Internet/internet, as mentioned earlier, being another example. -- Spuzzdawg ( talk) 22:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
At present the title is in lower case and the lead is in Title Case. I beleive ATM is a proper noun like Integrated Services Digital Network, Frame Relay, Multiprotocol Label Switching and Ethernet and so prefer Title Case. At a minimum we need to be self-consistent. If there is no more discussion, I will request a move to change the title to match the lead. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Some call this protocol "A Terrible Mistake". See http://www.clock.org/~fair/opinion/atm-is-bad.html Emersion ( talk) 11:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved: A rough concensus not to move the article( non-admin closure) Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 18:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Asynchronous Transfer Mode → Asynchronous transfer mode – See discussion 10 years ago, in Talk:Asynchronous Transfer Mode# lowercase correct about whether or not have the title with capital letters. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)