North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Clarification needed on ATM

  • From: Anthony D Cennami
  • Date: Thu Jun 06 09:08:40 2002


You are only nailing the PVP/PVC to your physical port. The provider almost certainly has sPVP/C's to route througout their actual ATM backbone, each of those routes with a destination NSAP of your ATM port (the port that terminates your physical link)

I'm not sure how this raises any security issue since any traffic that you feel should remain secure must be encrypted long before it reaches your carriers transit backbone.

Were these statically mapped (which I might add would be a horrific job for the network engineers and admins at a carrier) then one link failing in between any of your facilities would cause the entire PVP/C to collapse. sPVP/C's on NNI links are very common and beneficial/necessary to continuity on an ATM network.





Rich Sena wrote:
OK - sorry if this is elementary - however I am dealing with a challenge
to the security of some ATM links that we have connecting remote
facilities to a main campus.  The connections are all PVPs with individual
PVCs defined point to point.  The concern that is being raised is that
although these connections appear point-to-point PVCs to the router
interfaces at our sites and our main campus - they are more than likely
switched SVCs on the provider backbone...

I had thought that a PVC was a nailed up connection between vpi-vci pairs
throughout the provider ATM network - is that an incorrect assumption? And
if so is the scenario that was raised possible/probable and a concern?

Thanks for any info kids...