[2170] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MCI [ATM overhead]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Ferguson)
Tue Mar 19 23:27:24 1996
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 23:21:48 -0500
To: Jim Forster <forster@cisco.com>
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>
Cc: cook@cookreport.com, Jeff Ogden <jogden@merit.edu>, nanog@merit.edu
At 07:51 PM 3/19/96 -0800, Jim Forster wrote:
>
>There's beginning to be some expectation that there will be a transmission
>capacity crunch in the carrier's Sonet nets, and this ~25% ATM cell tax may
>be looked at carefully as packet over Sonet solutions emerge.
>
I think it will be critically important, especially in long-haul
interconnect scenarios.
Historically speaking, as providers have replaced congested links
with faster ones, they have also become quickly congested. And since
these high-speed long-haul links are not cheap, you can bet that these
organizations want to get the most bang-for-the-buck. I can't imagine
that ~25% bandwidth overhead would be acceptable, especially when
more efficient alternatives exist.
Nice synopsis, Jim.
- paul
