[32924] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Where are ATM NAPs going?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Mon Dec 18 20:38:19 2000
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:36:22 -0500
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20001218203622.A24444@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <3A3EAB59.742FE560@marconi.com>; from David Charlap on Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 07:27:05PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 07:27:05PM -0500, David Charlap wrote:
> > If there were OC-48 or OC-192 ATM coming, and/or switches with the
> > density to make that work it would have a future, but alas, that seems
> > to not be in any vendors road map.
>
> My company (Marconi) makes such a switch:
>
> http://www.marconi.com/html/solutions/asx4000.htm
>
> Non-blocking OC-48c ATM interfaces have been shipping for some time now.
Yes for _switches_, yes, and even the ASX4000 doesn't have the density
required. At a 40 gig switch, that's only, 16 ports of OC-48 non-blocking,
which is well, non-interesting.
Consider a successful NAP will have 80-120 connections, and you would want
to be able to get them all into the network at OC-48 speed without having to go
completely wild on the trunk side. Design that with your switch, tough job.
Compare that to an Extreme 6816, which for half the cost can do 192
gige ports in a single chassis, with 128Gbps of bandwidth. Makes the 40 gig
ATM switch seem, well, 1/4 as powerful.
This is all academic though, neither Cisco nor Juniper make any ATM
interfaces over OC-48 for a _ROUTER_, so even if the whole world wanted it,
it couldn't be done today. This is the classic problem with ATM, good backbone
(switch-to-switch) capabilities and performance, but no edge support.
--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org
Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
