North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical ATM v/s SONET
> >Vendors such as Fore are starting to offer OC-3c/12/c and OC-48c (future) >interfaces on their ATM switches. Using these interfaces, the switches can be >connected together in a ringlike fashion. A service offered when connected in >a ring is called Fast Failover Recovery, or something along that line. This >service provides functionality that is identical to SONET >protection-switching. Basically, bandwidth is reserved around the ring for >protection scenarios. When the ATM switches detect failure (fiber cut, node >failure, etc.), they recreate the VP around the opposite direction of the >ring using the reserved bandwidth. This is done at the ATM level, versus the >physical level for SONET. As expected, the switchover time is in seconds >versus the milliseconds for SONET. > >For networks that carry data that is not sensitive to this increased >switchover time, does it make sense to use SONET at all? The question comes >down to why do you need a SONET ring when then same functionality and speed >is provided by the ATM ring? mm mm sssss nnnnnn * Bharat Ranjan * m m m s nnnnnnn * Network Engineer * m m m sssss nn nn * MSN Network Services * m m s nn nn * (206)-936-0471 * m m sssss nn nn * [email protected] * ******************************************************* * The opinions/ideas in this memo are not necessarily * * those of Microsoft Corp. * ******************************************************* > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|