North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Where are ATM NAPs going?
Thus spake "David Charlap" <[email protected]> > Leo Bicknell wrote: > > > > Regardless of how good the technologies are, the router vendors > > have killed ATM as a future nap technology. To use the Cisco > > example, ATM tops out an OC-12 ... I thought there weren't commonly available SAR chips for OC48 yet. > > If there were OC-48 or OC-192 ATM coming, and/or switches > > with the density to make that work it would have a future, but alas, > > that seems to not be in any vendors road map. > > My company (Marconi) makes such a switch: > > http://www.marconi.com/html/solutions/asx4000.htm Push as many bits/RU as a typical GE switch and you can reapply for the term "density". ASX4000: Claimed Bandwidth: 40Gbit/s Height: 32 RU BW per RU: 1.25Gbit/s Volume: 14.59 cu.ft. BW per cu.ft.: 2.74Gbit/s Cat6500 (typical GE switch): Claimed Bandwidth: 256Gbit/s Height: 14.4RU BW per RU: 17.78Gbit/s Volume: 4.54 cu.ft. BW per cu.ft.: 56.39Gbit/s I assume other vendors' GE/POS products have a similar density edge over ATM; I was just using the most expedient example. > Non-blocking OC-48c ATM interfaces have been shipping for some > time now. Switching/trunking ATM at OC48/OC192 speeds is relatively trivial. Doing SAR, even on perfectly ordered cells, at those speeds is non-trivial. Packet slicing sucks. > -- David S | | Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE #3723 :|: :|: Network Design Consultant, GSOLE :|||: :|||: New office: RCDN2 in Richardson, TX .:|||||||:..:|||||||:. Email: [email protected]