|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Q:Why router with ATM interface comes out earlier than pure SONET interface?
> Well, that, and then you see all the applications in the corporate world, > all of them built on IP. Not on ATM. What do you think is going to drive > innovations and requirements on the service provider side? Service > providers aren't just here because somebody thought it was cool to have > service providers. I don't think it is an ip vs atm issue as it is an ip/other protocols are superior to ip/atm for reasons directly related to cost (i.e. nic deployment, cell tax etc.). > And if a service provider uses fundamentally different technologies and > approaches to solving the problem of the customers in an attempt to generate > revenue, the service provider better be running similiar technology (like > the customer). Otherwise it'll hardly be efficient. all that matters is $$$ or ($$$) > building an ATM core. One of these days someone will get the idea that MPLS > is intended to be connectionless. > > The connectionless way of looking at the world makes sense in an IP world. > It doesn't make much sense to folks who have done circuit switching for > their entire lives (or most of it). I just hope that the awakening doesn't > come at too high of a price to the latter. > Could you please define what you mean by connectionless? > We usually assume 25% cell shredder tax on ATM vs. POS. At OC-48, you'll be > blowing an OC-12 in framing. Seems like an awful waste of bandwidth to me. > Only if you are paying for it :).
|