[32925] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Where are ATM NAPs going?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Fraizer)
Mon Dec 18 21:19:38 2000
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:14:53 -0500 (EST)
From: John Fraizer <nanog@EnterZone.Net>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20001218190229.A22146@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012182113030.25801-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
So, what you're saying is that I should tell all the folks that want to
peer via ATM at CMH-IX (which supports 10/100/GE at this time) that they
should get bent or get GigE, right?
THANK YOU!
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc
CMH-IX NAP
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>
> Regardless of how good the technologies are, the router vendors
> have killed ATM as a future nap technology. To use the Cisco example,
> ATM tops out an OC-12, and has less port density than anything else at
> that speed (eg 3xGBE in the same slot). While cute, this is useless
> for an exchange of the future, where Gigabit will be the preferred connection
> in the sort term, and 10GigE will be the long term solution.
>
> Yesterday's 1 meg public peer on 100meg FE is turning into today's
> 10 meg public peer on 100Meg FE/622Mbps ATM, which is really a step backwards.
> They need to be on Gigabit soon, as tomorrow they will be the 100meg public
> peer, and you'll want to upgrade to 10GigE interfaces.
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org
> Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440
> Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
>
