[2196] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: MCI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bharat Ranjan)
Thu Mar 21 20:17:47 1996
From: Bharat Ranjan <bharatr@microsoft.com>
To: "'dorian@cic.net'" <dorian@cic.net>,
"'Arun Welch'"
<awelch@awelch.inhouse.compuserve.com>
Cc: "'david@dirigo.mint.net'" <david@dirigo.mint.net>,
"'Jasper@cloud9.net'"
<Jasper@cloud9.net>,
"'inet-access@earth.com'"
<inet-access@earth.com>,
"'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 15:32:03 -0800
>
>>
> > On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Arun Welch wrote:
> >
>>Yup. There's work in progress to put IP directly on SONET, which should save
>>people with OC-3c backbones from paying the ATM penalty.
>Last year, I was involved with some vendor work that was being done to
>optimize the
>SONET payload for various protocols. In particular, the 'growth' bytes
>Z3, Z4, and/or Z5 in
>the SONET Path overhead would be used to optimize the payload size
>based on the
>protocol being used. The thought was that such an optimization would
>take place at the
>"edge" of the network, where local traffic is passed to a WAN, via
>SONET. ATM was being
>focused on in particular, especially with the concatenated (OC-Nc)
>payload. I was told that
>IP has now been added to the list of protocols that SONET would
>optimize/support. If this
>work comes out as a SONET standard, it would be a great plus when using
>OC-3c interfaces
>on routers.
>
>
> mm mm sssss nnnnnn * Bharat Ranjan *
> m m m s nnnnnnn * Network Engineer *
> m m m sssss nn nn * Microsoft On-Line Services *
> m m s nn nn * (206)-936-0471 *
> m m sssss nn nn * bharatr@microsoft.com *
> *******************************************************
> * The opinions/ideas in this memo are not necessarily *
> * those of Microsoft Corp. *
> *******************************************************
>
>
>
>
