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
I don't undertsand, if ATM did create bandwith it would be great, but it does not. If ATM was needed to make packets move it would be great, but it's not. It seems to be usable as aa replacement for X.25 and Frame-Relay, for those who buy bandwith and routers and build private networks, but, for a public infrastructure, I don't think so. As the service deleiverd at the endpoint is IP, we need to interconnect the various parts of IP moving clouds, so we will have to have IP-switches (called routers) that go damn fast anyway. So, explain what's the problem here, I just demostrated that you can run production IP traffic at 155Mbit without making a detour through an ATM switch. It has been more stable than any other international circiut we have, and the 'new' technology works great. --Peter
Peter Lothberg writes:
I don't undertsand, if ATM did create bandwith it would be great, but it does not. If ATM was needed to make packets move it would be great, but it's not.
One issue on the above is that the ATM pipes have the history of going a step faster than the wide area IP pipes at the same time. Like we're now at STM4 for ATM and at STM1 for IP. Though this does not help too much with the current routing gear, but at least you can feed your backbone with a stack of STM1 ATM interfaces and actually move bits at aggregate rates that go STM4 if not faster (I can put multiple STM4 pipes in parallel in the backbone).
It seems to be usable as aa replacement for X.25 and Frame-Relay, for those who buy bandwith and routers and build private networks, but, for a public infrastructure, I don't think so.
A close look at the Internet market shows a large set of products aimed, in a way or another, for 'secure transmission of data over the Internet'. Either terminal-connections, like SSH, or VPN's. I see that as a clear demand for VPN services, at least for the area where bandwidth is inexpensive and plenty. Like in our case in Finland and Sweden. It does not take that much our of your pocket to pay the cell tax if the amount you start from is not large. (remember this when you fill in your tax forms, the "best way" to save in taxes is to earn less :-)
As the service deleiverd at the endpoint is IP, we need to interconnect the various parts of IP moving clouds, so we will have to have IP-switches (called routers) that go damn fast anyway.
Definetly we do. The problem here is that we're a generation away from routers that would go STM4. And maybe generation and half away from routers that would maintain fairness and maybe even QoS across them at the same time they go STM4 on a dozen interfaces.
So, explain what's the problem here, I just demostrated that you can run production IP traffic at 155Mbit without making a detour through an ATM switch.
Where the current POS pipe is, is a perfect place for 'ATM-less' circuit. When you say that you're going to do the next circuit locally, that makes me wonder of the benefits. If you would run the STM4 halfway across the globe, I would understand the benefits of being free of cell tax.
It has been more stable than any other international circiut we have, and the 'new' technology works great.
On which of the submarine cables it runs on, btw? Pete
participants (2)
-
Peter Lothberg -
Petri Helenius