North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI)
- From: Curtis Villamizar
- Date: Fri Mar 29 18:42:32 1996
In message <199603290546.VAA26294@lint.cisco.com>, Paul Ferguson writes:
> At 12:36 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Shikhar Bajaj wrote:
> >Several of our clients seriously consider
> >ATM/SONET the best way to go because they feel that a switched
> >technology like ATM is the best single technology (currently)
> >to offer them high speed and support for multiple applications (like
> >video and voice, as well as data). They are not just sending around
> >200-byte IP packets. Furthermore, the ability to get
> >quality of service support and guarantees is important them. They don't
> >think that RSVP, when it comes, will be enough. Finally,
> >to them, the economics makes sense. They understand the limitations
> >(i.e. overheads) and believe that they are acceptable.
> What you fail to mention, however, is that in an effort to achieve
> these noble goals across the Internet, you are relegated to using IP
> over ATM. This is the fatal flaw.
> Sorry. I remain unconvinced.
> Unless you begin building massive [native] long-haul ATM networks, this
> is not an acceptable transport for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
> - paul
Can we move this discussion to alt.religion.atm?