North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI)
- From: Dorian Kim
- Date: Fri Mar 29 21:33:11 1996
On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, Per Gregers Bilse wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:20, Mike Trest <trest@atmnet.net> wrote:
> > The discussions regarding ATM/SONET and IP over ATM are finally focused
> > on a fundamental issue:
>
> The fundamental question which remains without an answer is this: In
> which way do my packets benefit if transported by ATM? Is it
> cheaper? Doesn't look like it. Do they travel faster? No. Can I
> send more? No. Is it simpler? No, which means more failure modes
> (historical evidence, if nothing else, is plentiful). Is it more
> reliable than the alternatives? Probably not. So what do I stand to
> gain?
To put it another way:
What problem does ATM solve that it's alternative doesn't, and what
problem does ATM create that it's alternative doesn't?
You can do your own cost-benefit analysis to determine if you are
interested in ATM.
-dorian
|
