Re: IP over SONET considered harmful?
Subject: IP over SONET considered harmful?
I'd hoped that MPLS would solve this problem, but from reviewing the drafts I believe that the LSRs _WILL_ decrement the TTL.
I think this is a non-issue, considering that with the next generation of IP-only boxes ATM will become hopelessly useless. Better yet, the real big boxes are removing any need to do clustering, so the average number of IP hops for an NSP is going to be like 3 or 4. --vadim
Subject: IP over SONET considered harmful?
I'd hoped that MPLS would solve this problem, but from reviewing the drafts I believe that the LSRs _WILL_ decrement the TTL.
I think this is a non-issue, considering that with the next generation of IP-only boxes ATM will become hopelessly useless.
Better yet, the real big boxes are removing any need to do clustering, so the average number of IP hops for an NSP is going to be like 3 or 4.
Don't forget about ss7 bypass. It may get even better than you can imagine at the moment.
At 06:53 PM 3/20/98 -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Don't forget about ss7 bypass. It may get even better than you can imagine at the moment.
SS7 (or any other sort of PSTN relationship) has absolutely *nothing* to do with this. Let me guess -- you worked for Bell Labs in a previous life? - paul
Martin Hannigan wrote:
? I think this is a non-issue, considering that with the next generation of ? IP-only boxes ATM will become hopelessly useless. ? ? Better yet, the real big boxes are removing any need to do clustering, so ? the average number of IP hops for an NSP is going to be like 3 or 4.
Don't forget about ss7 bypass. It may get even better than you can imagine at the moment.
Like IP over raw fiber. Our friendly WDM vendors would love to get rid of SONET. SS7? What's that? ;) --vadim
Like IP over raw fiber. Our friendly WDM vendors would love to get rid of SONET. SS7? What's that? ;)
Sorry, gotta weigh in here... As great as POS is, and as exciting as running IP on optical OC-48 onto WDM gear sounds (no piece of cake, believe me...), there is STILL room for ATM. More than just the much-touted network traffic engineering value, too. Simply put, because of the B-ISDN heritage of ATM, I can actually run synchronous circuits over it (using circuit emulation) and have it work right. Can't get there from here with any IP-over-glass solutions, alas. And as much as an "IP over everything" bigot as I've been for the last 17 years or so, I still run into situations where what I *HAVE* to have is some kind of synchronous circuit. Wish it weren't so, but I can't just tell people "oh, you can't do that"... Stan -- Stanley P. Hanks Vice President, Engineering / FirstPoint Communications (an Enron company) 210 SW Morrison St., Suite 400 / Portland OR 97204 vox (503) 464-8480 / fax (503) 464-2042 / email stan_hanks@firstpoint.net
And as much as an "IP over everything" bigot as I've been for the last 17 years or so, I still run into situations where what I *HAVE* to have is some kind of synchronous circuit. Wish it weren't so, but I can't just tell people "oh, you can't do that"...
So you put in a parallel SONET/TDM infrastructure for volume deployment of TDM services. There is no way that CBR over ATM is economic in the large. And if you are trying to solve a smaller TDM problem, there is lots of good gear that could be wedged into a WDM fabric to deliver smaller volumes. Either way, this use of ATM will not prolong its lifespan. The numbers just do not work. Eric Carroll Tekton Internet Associates
participants (6)
-
avg＠pluris.com -
Eric M. Carroll -
Martin Hannigan -
Paul Ferguson -
Stan Hanks -
Vadim Antonov