[32963] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Where are ATM NAPs going?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Sprunk)
Tue Dec 19 17:09:03 2000
Message-ID: <023101c06a07$3c818390$35132ca1@glock>
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk@cisco.com>
To: "David Charlap" <david.charlap@marconi.com>,
"Leo Bicknell" <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:50:04 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Thus spake "David Charlap" <david.charlap@marconi.com>
> 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 ...
I thought there weren't commonly available SAR chips for OC48 yet.
> > 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
Push as many bits/RU as a typical GE switch and you can reapply for the
term "density".
ASX4000:
Claimed Bandwidth: 40Gbit/s
Height: 32 RU
BW per RU: 1.25Gbit/s
Volume: 14.59 cu.ft.
BW per cu.ft.: 2.74Gbit/s
Cat6500 (typical GE switch):
Claimed Bandwidth: 256Gbit/s
Height: 14.4RU
BW per RU: 17.78Gbit/s
Volume: 4.54 cu.ft.
BW per cu.ft.: 56.39Gbit/s
I assume other vendors' GE/POS products have a similar density edge over
ATM; I was just using the most expedient example.
> Non-blocking OC-48c ATM interfaces have been shipping for some
> time now.
Switching/trunking ATM at OC48/OC192 speeds is relatively trivial.
Doing SAR, even on perfectly ordered cells, at those speeds is
non-trivial. Packet slicing sucks.
> -- David
S
| | Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE #3723
:|: :|: Network Design Consultant, GSOLE
:|||: :|||: New office: RCDN2 in Richardson, TX
.:|||||||:..:|||||||:. Email: ssprunk@cisco.com
