Also, please also do not confuse Vadim's individual opinion with the opinion of Sprint. Sprint also recognizes the cost-benefits of a fast packet service versus point-to-point circuits. One of the primary reasons we pursued an ATM strategy in advance of many others was due to the cost-benefits in our backbone...There are a litany of other reasons which I would be happy to pontificate...Pushpendra, no criticism intended, but I would probably argue that our stockholders do not consider the cost of additional network capacity as "funny-money".... Bob Doyle Sprint
From: Pushpendra Mohta <pushp@CERF.NET> Message-Id: <199411020630.WAA05172@mystic.cerf.net> Subject: Re: ATM Utility To: boone@prep.net (Jon 'Iain' Boone) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 22:30:14 -0800 (PST) Cc: avg@sprint.net, tjs@msc.edu, nanog@merit.edu, nap@hq.si.net In-Reply-To: <Pine.ULT.3.91.941101155015.2348E-100000@nic.prep.net> from "Jon 'Iain' Boone" at Nov 1, 94 03:53:24 pm X-Usmail: CERFnet, P.O. BOX 85608, San Diego, CA 92186-9784 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1993
Jon 'Iain' Boone writes:
On Mon, 31 Oct 1994, Vadim Antonov wrote:
cost-effective in a number of applications today. In particular, the cost of wide-area DS-3 ATM services can be very attractive when compared to a number of point-to-point DS-3s.
TAANSTAFL. You keep forgetting that underneath ATM there are the same SONET or clearline DS-3s/OC-3s etc. So, just by using IP routers instead of ATM switches you get 30% more bandwidth for the same price. ATM does not appear to make economical sense when applied to both data and voice communications. So, from the point of view of a user purchasing something carriers offer ATM may make sense (if carrier does not offer native IP) -- but from the point of view of a carrier ATM does not look that attractive.
You still have to run IP over ATM (there's no such thing as native ATM applications yet), and the extra level of encapsulation does not bring anything worth 30% of bandwidth.
In terms of real switching capacity (i.e. user data payload) the new generation of IP routers is pretty much close to ATM switches -- and quite cheaper.
But, if you don't need the full 45 Mb/s, you can find a more cost-effective solution in the wide-area Fast-packet services. In the case of the MCI Hyperstream offerings, you don't have to pay for the full amount of a circuit from point A to point B -- you simply pay a monthly subscription fee and then a usage charge per Megabyte of data.
So, you can build a multi-megabit/s backbone that is (say) 10 Mb/s and not end up having to purchase the entirety of the DS3 circuits needed to provision it.
Indeed.
Vadim works for a phone company, where long haul SONET links are funny money. Not like the rest of us :-)
--pushpendra
Pushpendra Mohta pushp@cerf.net +1 619 455 3908 Director of Engineering +1 800 876 2373 CERFNet
Bob Doyle writes:
Also, please also do not confuse Vadim's individual opinion with the opinion of Sprint. Sprint also recognizes the cost-benefits of a fast packet service versus point-to-point circuits. One of the primary reasons we pursued an ATM strategy in advance of many others was due to the cost-benefits in our backbone...There are a litany of other reasons which I would be happy to pontificate...Pushpendra, no criticism intended, but I would probably argue that our stockholders do not consider the cost of additional network capacity as "funny-money"....
Bob, I meant it in jest. It is easy for staff to lose sight of that fact, just like my staff sometimes tends to forget about the incremental cost of additional Internet access when coming up with proposals for new services. Recall that CERFnet is probably the only customer at this point of Sprint ATM services that is using it to access the NAPs. --pushpendra Pushpendra Mohta pushp@cerf.net +1 619 455 3908 Director of Engineering +1 800 876 2373 CERFNet
participants (2)
-
Bob Doyle -
Pushpendra Mohta