North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI)
On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, Per Gregers Bilse wrote: > On Mar 29, 9:20, Mike Trest <[email protected]> wrote: > > The discussions regarding ATM/SONET and IP over ATM are finally focused > > on a fundamental issue: > > The fundamental question which remains without an answer is this: In > which way do my packets benefit if transported by ATM? Is it > cheaper? Doesn't look like it. Do they travel faster? No. Can I > send more? No. Is it simpler? No, which means more failure modes > (historical evidence, if nothing else, is plentiful). Is it more > reliable than the alternatives? Probably not. So what do I stand to > gain? To put it another way: What problem does ATM solve that it's alternative doesn't, and what problem does ATM create that it's alternative doesn't? You can do your own cost-benefit analysis to determine if you are interested in ATM. -dorian
|