Re: Where are ATM NAPs going?

["Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk () cisco com>]

Thus spake "David Charlap" <david.charlap () marconi com>
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > Regardless of how good the technologies are, the router vendors
> > have killed ATM as a future nap technology.  To use the Cisco
> > example, ATM tops out an OC-12 ...

I thought there weren't commonly available SAR chips for OC48 yet.

> > If there were OC-48 or OC-192 ATM coming, and/or switches
> > with the density to make that work it would have a future, but alas,
> > that seems to not be in any vendors road map.
>
> My company (Marconi) makes such a switch:
>
> http://www.marconi.com/html/solutions/asx4000.htm

Push as many bits/RU as a typical GE switch and you can reapply for the
term "density".

ASX4000:
Claimed Bandwidth: 40Gbit/s
Height: 32 RU
BW per RU: 1.25Gbit/s
Volume: 14.59 cu.ft.
BW per cu.ft.: 2.74Gbit/s

Cat6500 (typical GE switch):
Claimed Bandwidth: 256Gbit/s
Height: 14.4RU
BW per RU: 17.78Gbit/s
Volume: 4.54 cu.ft.
BW per cu.ft.: 56.39Gbit/s

I assume other vendors' GE/POS products have a similar density edge over
ATM; I was just using the most expedient example.

> Non-blocking OC-48c ATM interfaces have been shipping for some
> time now.

Switching/trunking ATM at OC48/OC192 speeds is relatively trivial.
Doing SAR, even on perfectly ordered cells, at those speeds is
non-trivial.  Packet slicing sucks.

> -- David

S

     |          |         Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE #3723
    :|:        :|:        Network Design Consultant, GSOLE
   :|||:      :|||:       New office: RCDN2 in Richardson, TX
.:|||||||:..:|||||||:.    Email: ssprunk () cisco com