nanog mailing list archives
Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI)
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso () cisco com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 23:06:20 -0500
At 10:48 AM 3/26/96 -0500, Shikhar Bajaj wrote:
Currently, the only way of doing this is the "traditional way" of using SONET add-drop muxes to get you up to higher rates. You mux the STS-3c into an STS-12 and then mux the 12's into a STS-48. This is what we are doing in ATDNet which is a ATM OC-48 bidirectional line-switched ring for ARPA
and DoD.
(see http://www.atd.net/atdnet.html). As per our previous discussion, the trend seems to be putting the switching and transport functions in one box so that you may be able to buy an ATM switch that also does SONET protection switching.
I fail understand, however, why ATM over SONET is desirable when there is such a loss to overhead, especially when viable alternatives may exist to get more bang-for-the-buck. Perhaps someone could enlighten me on this particular datapoint? - paul
Current thread:
- SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI) Bharat Ranjan (Mar 25)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI) Shikhar Bajaj (Mar 26)
- Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI) Paul Ferguson (Mar 28)
- Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI) Paul A Vixie (Mar 28)
- Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI) Shikhar Bajaj (Mar 28)
- Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI) Sean Doran (Mar 28)
- Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI) Shikhar Bajaj (Mar 28)
- Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI) Paul Ferguson (Mar 28)
- Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI) Shikhar Bajaj (Mar 28)
- Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI) Mike Trest (Mar 29)
- Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI) Per Gregers Bilse (Mar 29)
- Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI) Dorian Kim (Mar 29)
- Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI) Curtis Villamizar (Mar 29)