Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI)

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis () ans net>]

In message <199603290546.VAA26294 () lint cisco com>, Paul Ferguson writes:
> At 12:36 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Shikhar Bajaj wrote:
>
> > Several of our clients seriously consider
> > ATM/SONET the best way to go because they feel that a switched
> > technology like ATM is the best single technology (currently) 
> > to offer them high speed and support for multiple applications (like
> > video and voice, as well as data).  They are not just sending around
> > 200-byte IP packets.  Furthermore, the ability to get
> > quality of service support and guarantees is important them.  They don't
> > think that RSVP, when it comes, will be enough.  Finally,
> > to them, the economics makes sense.  They understand the limitations
> > (i.e. overheads) and believe that they are acceptable. 
>
> What you fail to mention, however, is that in an effort to achieve
> these noble goals across the Internet, you are relegated to using IP
> over ATM. This is the fatal flaw.
>
> Sorry. I remain unconvinced.
>
> Unless you begin building massive [native] long-haul ATM networks, this
> is not an acceptable transport for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
>
> - paul


Paul, Shikkar,

Can we move this discussion to alt.religion.atm?

Curtis