Thus spake "David Charlap" <david.charlap@marconi.com>
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:
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: ssprunk@cisco.com