Re: Where are ATM NAPs going?

[Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 09:14:53PM -0500, John Fraizer wrote:
> So, what you're saying is that I should tell all the folks that want to
> peer via ATM at CMH-IX (which supports 10/100/GE at this time) that they
> should get bent or get GigE, right?
>
> THANK YOU!

        I had to go google search for this one, and I presume you mean
http://www.cmh-ix.net/.  If so, it's a good thing the operators made the
wise decision to support GigE, otherwise they couldn't possibly expect
to meet demand.  :-)

        I do want to applaud the CMH-IX, not because it will be a major
exchange point in the future of the Internet, but because it does keep local
traffic local.  This is a good thing that should be done more.  While I
won't suggest that CMH-IX should run an ATM (or other) layer two fabric,
I know of many smaller ISP's in metro areas who all buy a DS-3 into the
same frame relay or atm network so they can "private peer" for the cost of
a PVC.   This is sort of an "exchange without an exchange".

        So, should CMH-IX go ATM?  Well, given the traffic levels I don't
think you could collect enough in fees to pay for an ATM switch.  On that
basis, ATM is a poor choice.  Again, it's a poor choice not because of the
technology, but because of the price points and products available.

-- 
Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org
Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request () tmbg org, www.tmbg.org