Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI)
At 12:36 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Shikhar Bajaj wrote:
Several of our clients seriously consider ATM/SONET the best way to go because they feel that a switched technology like ATM is the best single technology (currently) to offer them high speed and support for multiple applications (like video and voice, as well as data). They are not just sending around 200-byte IP packets. Furthermore, the ability to get quality of service support and guarantees is important them. They don't think that RSVP, when it comes, will be enough. Finally, to them, the economics makes sense. They understand the limitations (i.e. overheads) and believe that they are acceptable.
What you fail to mention, however, is that in an effort to achieve these noble goals across the Internet, you are relegated to using IP over ATM. This is the fatal flaw. Sorry. I remain unconvinced. Unless you begin building massive [native] long-haul ATM networks, this is not an acceptable transport for the reasons I mentioned earlier. - paul
According to Paul Ferguson:
At 12:36 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Shikhar Bajaj wrote:
Several of our clients seriously consider ATM/SONET the best way to go because they feel that a switched technology like ATM is the best single technology (currently) to offer them high speed and support for multiple applications (like video and voice, as well as data). They are not just sending around 200-byte IP packets. Furthermore, the ability to get quality of service support and guarantees is important them. They don't think that RSVP, when it comes, will be enough. Finally, to them, the economics makes sense. They understand the limitations (i.e. overheads) and believe that they are acceptable.
What you fail to mention, however, is that in an effort to achieve these noble goals across the Internet, you are relegated to using IP over ATM. This is the fatal flaw.
Yes, I admit my guilt. Our clients are looking at solutions in parallel with the Internet. They feel that sole reliance on the Internet will not cut it.
Sorry. I remain unconvinced.
That's fine. I'm not trying to sell anything to anyone :). Shikhar
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
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:
In fact, this is getting boring. Your arguments sound convincing, but don't really say anything else than "ATM is good". In particular, the apparently wide "industry acceptance" is nothing else than the outcome of the hysteria which invariably surrounds new, flashy thingies that promise to solve all problems. It isn't the first time that essentially non-functional, seriously flawed, and ridiculously expensive technology is being pursued with great vigour. It's techno-religion for the masses and the unwitting, and the vendors are simply satisfying the demand -- they're in business, after all, it's what vendors do (and that's fine with me). 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? -- ------ ___ --- Per G. Bilse, Mgr Network Operations Ctr ----- / / / __ ___ _/_ ---- EUnet Communications Services B.V. ---- /--- / / / / /__/ / ----- Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL --- /___ /__/ / / /__ / ------ tel: +31 20 6233803, fax: +31 20 6224657 --- ------- 24hr emergency number: +31 20 421 0865 --- Connecting Europe since 1982 --- http://www.EU.net; e-mail: bilse@EU.net
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
In message <199603290546.VAA26294@lint.cisco.com>, Paul Ferguson writes:
At 12:36 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Shikhar Bajaj wrote:
Several of our clients seriously consider ATM/SONET the best way to go because they feel that a switched technology like ATM is the best single technology (currently) to offer them high speed and support for multiple applications (like video and voice, as well as data). They are not just sending around 200-byte IP packets. Furthermore, the ability to get quality of service support and guarantees is important them. They don't think that RSVP, when it comes, will be enough. Finally, to them, the economics makes sense. They understand the limitations (i.e. overheads) and believe that they are acceptable.
What you fail to mention, however, is that in an effort to achieve these noble goals across the Internet, you are relegated to using IP over ATM. This is the fatal flaw.
Sorry. I remain unconvinced.
Unless you begin building massive [native] long-haul ATM networks, this is not an acceptable transport for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
- paul
Paul, Shikkar, Can we move this discussion to alt.religion.atm? Curtis
participants (6)
-
bajaj＠bellcore.com -
Curtis Villamizar -
Dorian Kim -
Mike Trest -
Paul Ferguson -
Per Gregers Bilse