North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI)

  • From: Dorian Kim
  • Date: Fri Mar 29 21:33:11 1996

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.