Paul, I welcome your observation. The role of ATM in the Internet is a properly controversial one, and I'm sure the final page is not written. My point was intended to be narrow. I assume that the purpose of the trans-oceanic links is to effectively carry Internet traffic of a nature similar to usual Internet traffic. Given the very high price generally attached by carriers to T3 (and higher speed) leased lines, one is tempted to use ATM (particularly if it's priced lower). Many of the problems in the use of ATM to support Internet traffic become *especially* bad when one tries to support large delay-bandwidth products with traffic that is often quite bursty. This is often the case with such projects at the link that Peter described. When you consider a number of successes in the use of ATM in the Internet, such as the use of ATM within the MCI backbone here in the states, you will see that: - IP over ATM *can* be done correctly, particularly if one avoids overcommitting the bandwidth of the link, and - one often finds that IP over ATM is used when it's the only way to provision links faster than T3. One of the things that pleases me about the OC3 link that Peter announced this morning is that we may now find that there are (at least) two ways that engineers can consider in provisioning links faster than T3: IP over ATM and IP over SONET/SDH. As both alternatives become mature, we can begin to really compare which works best in various cases. Regards, -- Guy p.s.: I was specifically not trying to address the issue of 'world- wide telephone systems'. At 08:50 PM 9/23/96 +0200, Paul Christ wrote:
Hi, all of you,
ok, congratulation, 'no ATM' - but:
Don't you feel sometimes in all this fine argumentation against ATM a certain intellektuelle Unredlichkeit (intellectual dishonesty)?
Why?
'ATM said' from the beginning: We can do everything - the telephone system, eventually the video distribution and data.
Did anybody in the `integrated services packet network' camp claim: We can run the world-wide telephone system say by IPv6 over SDH?
(or would this be a non-goal?, or do we say, ATM also wouldn't run the phone system, and so on; years ago we had IBM's packet transfer mode ... and so on)
Yours
Paul Christ
------------------------------------ On Sep 23, 10:26am, Guy T Almes wrote:
Subject: Re: Very fast IP, no ATM... Peter, Congratulations. This pleases me greatly. The success of the January 1994 trans-pacific T3 link from California to Hawaii by ANS was, in part, also due to taking advantage of direct IP over T3 frames. -- Guy p.s.: have you any measures of IP-level throughput over this link?
At 03:43 AM 9/23/96 DST, Peter Lothberg wrote:
On Monday 23 September 1996 00:15Z..
Was the worlds first transatlantic 155Mbit native IP service brought into operation by Sprint/USA and Tele2/Sweden.
The circiut wich is part of Sprintlink and ICMnet runs between the NY-Nap in Pennsauken, NJ, USA and Tele2 in Sweden and uses cisco packet-over-sonet/sdh technology. (Native IP over SDH/VC4)
In 1995 the same team from Sprint and Tele2 brought up the worlds first transatlantic E3 service between the same endpoints.
For more information;
Sprint: Tricia Schibler, +1 703 904 2042,
<tricia.schibler@qm.sprintcorp.com>
Tele2: Olle Wallner, +46 8 5626 4058, <wallner@swip.net>
--Peter
-- End of excerpt from Guy T Almes