[32926] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Where are ATM NAPs going?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Mon Dec 18 22:14:02 2000
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:12:07 -0500
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20001218221207.A26866@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012182113030.25801-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>; from John Fraizer on Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 09:14:53PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 09:14:53PM -0500, John Fraizer wrote:
> 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!
I had to go google search for this one, and I presume you mean
http://www.cmh-ix.net/. If so, it's a good thing the operators made the
wise decision to support GigE, otherwise they couldn't possibly expect
to meet demand. :-)
I do want to applaud the CMH-IX, not because it will be a major
exchange point in the future of the Internet, but because it does keep local
traffic local. This is a good thing that should be done more. While I
won't suggest that CMH-IX should run an ATM (or other) layer two fabric,
I know of many smaller ISP's in metro areas who all buy a DS-3 into the
same frame relay or atm network so they can "private peer" for the cost of
a PVC. This is sort of an "exchange without an exchange".
So, should CMH-IX go ATM? Well, given the traffic levels I don't
think you could collect enough in fees to pay for an ATM switch. On that
basis, ATM is a poor choice. Again, it's a poor choice not because of the
technology, but because of the price points and products available.
--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org
Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
