[2178] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MCI [ATM overhead]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Shikhar Bajaj)
Wed Mar 20 20:27:19 1996
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 20:15:33 -0500
From: bajaj@bellcore.com (Shikhar Bajaj)
To: avg@postman.ncube.com, cook@cookreport.com, forster@cisco.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
>> 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.e. a dual clearline DS-3 actually carries as much user data as OC-3c ATM.
> Which, incidentally, was why SprintLink backbone design is easily expandable
> to dual links (that includes carefully considering implications for routing).
> Sean presented that design on NANOG a year ago, BTW. Funny thing, the design
> is expandable beyond that, too, so OC-3 ATM is already obsolete.
>
> --vadim
Other than the SprintLink design Vadim mentions above, what other
alternatives are emerging for high bandwidth IP transport? Is anyone
implementing PPP over SONET (RFC 1619)?
Shikhar
