Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: IP-Internets

  • From: Alex P. Rudnev
  • Date: Thu Oct 14 17:06:07 1999

> 
>    From the ATM Forum Board of Directors Report - Rome, Italy, April 23,1999:
>    
>    ... Fred [Baker, chair of the IETF] stated that 75% of all Internet traffic
>    today touches an ATM device and acknowledged the importance of the role
	   ^^^^^^^ - KEY WORD.

Touched - yes (this message touch ATM here twice). More interesting are
the slow tendencies.

The ATM as the background has the problem -  the lack of QoS in
this 2 level schema if don't use very complex methods (compare RED+
PRECEDENCE for the DIRECT LINK - and MLPS or ATM Bundle /cisco/).
The common idea - if you have an hierarchy of the
different network stacks (ATM + IP this case), and there is not good way
to translate QoS markers from one level to another (in case of ATM, the
only way to do it is to distribute different QoS streams by the different
ATM circuits, which cause a lot of headache, and restrict the main
principle KISS - don't do QoS calculations where there is not
congestion). On the other hand, 2 level network structure realize another
GOOD network rule - make every decision ONCE /read packet, analyze it,
find outgoing device, mark it and send it there to this device - no
transit points should analyze the same packets again; and it makes
this 2 level schemas not so worst. The administrative issues (different
administration for the background network and IP network) are the benefits
(sometimes) too.

Really, if someone know some deep analyze of this tendencies, please, send
the reference here.

Alex.

>    of ATM in providing traffic engineering in today's networks. ... 
> 
> I don't really know where this number comes from nor whether it is
> really true.
> 
> A number of facilities-based carriers are either migrating or talking
> about migrating from ATM to some sort of IP-over-fiber solution.  I
> believe that the economics of ATM versus IP-over-fiber solutions are
> tremendously different for those who own fiber compared to those who
> don't own the fiber.
> 
> > Do network operators really care about the  cell-tax?
> > 	[...]
> 
> Define "care".  Certainly, one sees a lot of whining about the ATM
> "cell tax".  On the other hand, if Fred Baker is correct, ATM is heavily
> used in the Internet.  Having said that, I believe that any ISP that
> selects a service on the basis of some sort of overhead measurement, rather
> than an evaluation of cost versus performance, is confused.
> 
> -tjs
> 
> 

Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow
(+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager)
(+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)






Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.