[20652] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SUMMARY: SONET ring questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Barber)
Tue Oct 20 04:55:25 1998
To: pete@cobra.brass.com (Peter Polasek)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:34:18 +0100 (BST)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.981019170619.27088A-100000@cobra> from "Peter Polasek" at Oct 19, 98 05:09:09 pm
From: Tony Barber <tonyb@uk.uu.net>
Peter Polasek wrote:
>
>
>Several people questioned the use of ATM on WAN. We are not running
>ATM anywhere within the internal LAN and do not need voice or video. The
>ATM interface is being deployed on the WAN because it is the only option
>for 155Mbps connectivity - almost. Cisco provides a relatively
>new 'Packet over Sonet' (POS) option that more effectively uses the
>OC-3 bandwidth because it eliminates the ATM encapsulation overhead.
>We are considering this option but are a little hesitant because it is
>not terribly mature at this point. I would be interested in hearing
>about any real-world experience with POS from those who are using
>it in a mission critical production environment.
>
Peter, POS works fine, it eliminates a whole switching layer which may or
may not be suitable for your environment. Your network size and design
will dictate your needs. We have virtually 100% uptime on POSIP links with no
i/f problems. Its pretty mature, we have been using it for around 18 months
now.
Regards
Tony
