On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 01:13:04PM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Personally, I don't believe that ATM is 'bad' for > shared-fabric exchange point. I mean, it works, and solves several > problems quite easy: a) it's easily distributed via SONET services to > folks who are not next to the ATM switch, b) it makes interconnection > between networks safer (ie, not dealing with broadcast issues on a > ethernet nap), c) virtual PI connections are easily accomplished, d) there > are varying degrees of interconnection speed (agreeably, less important),
All of the above are true of frame relay as well, which has the additional benefit of not being funamentally incompatible with data networking. :-)
I doubt that any of the ATM-based echanges were built because of a deep affection for ATM. More likely, it was the only virtual circuit techonlogy around at the the time that a certain router vendor supported at speeds greater than DS3. ATM worked reasonably well for that application, once there were switches with adequate buffering. Anyone building a similar exchange today would have new choices not available three or more years ago. Steve