North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI)

  • From: Paul Ferguson
  • Date: Fri Mar 29 00:15:43 1996

At 10:48 AM 3/26/96 -0500, Shikhar Bajaj wrote:

>
>Currently, the only way of doing this is the "traditional way" of using
>SONET add-drop muxes to get you up to higher rates.  You mux the STS-3c into
>an STS-12 and then mux the 12's into a STS-48. This is what we are doing
>in ATDNet which is a ATM OC-48 bidirectional line-switched ring for ARPA
and DoD.
>(see http://www.atd.net/atdnet.html). 
>
>As per our previous discussion, the trend seems to be putting the switching
>and transport functions in one box so that you may be able to buy an
>ATM switch that also does SONET protection switching.   
>

I fail understand, however, why ATM over SONET is desirable when there is
such a loss to overhead, especially when viable alternatives may exist to
get more bang-for-the-buck.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me on this particular datapoint?

- paul