North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI)

  • From: Sean Doran
  • Date: Fri Mar 29 22:17:51 1996

| Ok, NDA aside then, too. Assume you had to decide now. You go multi
| DS3 and wait for new options because you do not need more than 2xDS3
| = OC3c + ATM? Would you go 3xDS3 and load share?

Yes to the latter.  When we were thinking about scale
some time ago, Vadim sketched out a very reasonable
proposal for a stacking network topology to build a
3xDS3 network immediately or incrementally.

Router technology has changed to the degree that we could now
do this fairly cheaply in comparison to any solution which
offered comparable bandwidth in a unified form; the key
additional costs would involve space for CSU/DSUs, and the
extra slots to make up for the poor port density HIP cards
give you.  This compares favourably with the space
requirements of ATM switching equipment, especially when
factoring in other cost items such as configuration and

If building a network with a relatively small set of POPs
and circuits that follow fibre paths, the trade off thus
would be less space/power/heat/capital costs and more
complexity and the ability to do sustained traffic flows at
more than DS3.  Packet forwarding technology changes in the
75xx architecture appear to have ameliorated the latter too.

In networks with very different topologies, YMMV.

I suppose the proper quip would be, "gee, wouldn't you have
better luck talking with your vendor rather than your
competitor?" (or even gee, ATM is neat, go for it!), but I'm
in a helpful mood for some reason today.