The discussions regarding ATM/SONET and IP over ATM are finally focused on a fundamental issue:
Unless you begin building massive [native] long-haul ATM networks, this is not an acceptable transport for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
- paul
IMHO, "... massive [native] long-haul ATM networks..." are aready being put together (as we are doing) because: (1) ATM is based on "good science" - a lot of people did a lot of good research before building the first ATM switch (2) ATM is based on "good economics" - pay large $$ once to put fiber in the ground. Pay smaller $$ increments for speed improvements whenever you figure how to build better electronics at ether end of the glass. (3) ATM is being supported by "good people" - I am not surprised by the hundreds of announcements comming from a variety of vendors. Can that many manufacturers be wrong? [I admit that a few are quite naive regarding impact of doing IP networks over ATM today.] (4) ATM and IP are already enjoying "good success" together. We all hear about problems. Not enough is heard about success. [Not enough press sizzle]. I have encouraged all our vendors and customers to put their ATM success story on their WWW page. Guess what! Most are so busy with new business that they do not want to let their competition know how they are doing it. Here at ATMNET we are biased in favor of using ATM for transport of IP traffic as well as non-IP traffic. We are not stopping at the use of ATM as our backbone technology. We provide ATM all the way to the customer premises at OC3 (or higher) speeds. IMHO, ATM and IP are *NOT* conflicting technologies. The common goal is to produce a survivable, scaleable, robust networks. The respective focus is on a different piece of the common problem. Early ARPAnet researchers and TCP/IP network builders understood that the protocol had to be independent of the host computers and the transport mechanisms to endure. [Yes, I date myself with this admission.] Today's commercial developers still understand this natural division. As network operators we must contribute to the continuing IP/ATM dialog and focus our unique perspectives [i.e. operating profitably] on the common goal. I think members of NANOG are correctly voicing concerns about the future of both IP and ATM. BUT have you noticed that a lot of ATM FORUM members are also the very same manufacturers who provide us our IP based equipment? Perhaps we all need to do a better job of telling our IP equipment providers of our ATM concerns. This is my practice. Unfortunately, the manufacturers could all improve their responsiveness to today's IP routing probelms. We try very hard to keep our vendors informed of our expectations of them on ATM and IP matters. This way, they go the the ATM working groups and fight for what *WE* want. ..mike.. Mike Trest EMAIL: trest@atmnet.net ATMNET Voice: 619 643-1800 / 619 643-1805 5440 Morehouse Dr, #3700 Fax: 619 643-1801 San Diego, CA 92121 Ans/Page: 619 960 9070