RE: Q:Why router with ATM interface comes out earlier than pure SONET interface?

[brad <brad () poofy tbn tm>]

> Well, that, and then you see all the applications in the corporate world,
> all of them built on IP.  Not on ATM.  What do you think is going to drive
> innovations and requirements on the service provider side?  Service
> providers aren't just here because somebody thought it was cool to have
> service providers.

I don't think it is an ip vs atm issue as it is an ip/other protocols
are superior to ip/atm for reasons directly related to cost (i.e. 
nic deployment, cell tax etc.).  
  
> And if a service provider uses fundamentally different technologies and
> approaches to solving the problem of the customers in an attempt to generate
> revenue, the service provider better be running similiar technology (like
> the customer).  Otherwise it'll hardly be efficient.

all that matters is $$$ or ($$$)

> building an ATM core.  One of these days someone will get the idea that MPLS
> is intended to be connectionless.
>
> The connectionless way of looking at the world makes sense in an IP world.
> It doesn't make much sense to folks who have done circuit switching for
> their entire lives (or most of it).  I just hope that the awakening doesn't
> come at too high of a price to the latter.
Could you please define what you mean by connectionless?
  
> We usually assume 25% cell shredder tax on ATM vs. POS.  At OC-48, you'll be
> blowing an OC-12 in framing.  Seems like an awful waste of bandwidth to me.
Only if you are paying for it :).