|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 20:19:45 -0500 (EST) From: Dorian Kim <dorian@cic.net> Reply-To: Dorian Kim <dorian@cic.net> To: Per Gregers Bilse <bilse@EU.net> cc: Mike Trest <trest@atmnet.net>, nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <199603300038.AA04250@jotun.EU.net> On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, Per Gregers Bilse wrote: > On Mar 29, 9:20, Mike Trest <trest@atmnet.net> wrote: > > The discussions regarding ATM/SONET and IP over ATM are finally focused > > on a fundamental issue: > > The fundamental question which remains without an answer is this: In > which way do my packets benefit if transported by ATM? Is it > cheaper? Doesn't look like it. Do they travel faster? No. Can I > send more? No. Is it simpler? No, which means more failure modes > (historical evidence, if nothing else, is plentiful). Is it more > reliable than the alternatives? Probably not. So what do I stand to > gain? To put it another way: What problem does ATM solve that it's alternative doesn't, and what problem does ATM create that it's alternative doesn't? You can do your own cost-benefit analysis to determine if you are interested in ATM. -dorian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |