nanog mailing list archives
RE: too many routes
From: "Chris A. Icide" <chris () nap net>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:04:48 -0500
L2 switches are available today that reliably receive OC-12 SONET circuits. These can be disaggregated into OC3 ATM pipes that can be fed into many routers with proven technology and reliability. Granted, the disproportionality of the edge ckts to the backbone ckts provides for interesting flow aggregation dynamics, but it does work. Your disdain for ATM does not stop its existence and use by the larger NSPs.
Just think, there are people out there "throwing away" an oc-3 worth of bandwidth to IP over ATM overhead. Must be nice to live in a world of capitalization where one could do such a thing. We use ATM for two reasons, 1) it's still significantly cheaper than long-haul circuits of the same capacity, 2) it provides some interesting abilites that are only now beginning to show up in the mainstream IP hardware. -- additional commentary by yours truly removed by BS filter -- - Chris
Current thread:
- Re: too many routes, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: too many routes Jay R. Ashworth (Sep 11)
- Re: too many routes Sean M. Doran (Sep 11)
- Re: too many routes Michael Dillon (Sep 11)
- NATs and addressing Sean M. Doran (Sep 11)
- Message not available
- Re: too many routes Jay R. Ashworth (Sep 11)
- Re: too many routes David Mercer (Sep 11)
- Re: too many routes Sean M. Doran (Sep 10)
- Re: too many routes Sean M. Doran (Sep 11)
- Re: too many routes Richard Irving (Sep 11)
- ATM (was Re: too many routes) Sean M. Doran (Sep 11)
- Re: ATM (was Re: too many routes) Vadim Antonov (Sep 11)
- Re: ATM (was Re: too many routes) Richard Irving (Sep 11)
- Re: ATM (was Re: too many routes) Michael Dillon (Sep 11)
- Re: ATM (was Re: too many routes) Vadim Antonov (Sep 11)
- Re: ATM (was Re: too many routes) Geoff Huston (Sep 14)
- Re: ATM (was Re: too many routes) Susan R. Harris (Sep 15)
- Re: ATM (was Re: too many routes) Ken Hays (Sep 15)