[40418] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: MPLS VPNs or not?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kavi, Prabhu)
Wed Aug 8 13:03:06 2001
Message-ID: <6B190B34070BD411ACA000B0D0214E56CB812D@newman.tenornet.com>
From: "Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>
To: "'Travis Pugh'" <tdp@discombobulated.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 12:53:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Absolutely right, which (along with TE on IP routers) is why
I think ATM has outlived its usefulness in the backbone
of an ISP network.
Prabhu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Travis Pugh [mailto:tdp@discombobulated.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 12:40 PM
> To: Kavi, Prabhu
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: MPLS VPNs or not?
>
>
> > At one time, UUNET's traffic was simply outrunning the
> > ability of L3 routers to keep up. Their choices were to:
>
> That does invite a companion observation: at one time, I
> could reasonably
> guess that their traffic was outrunning the ability of Layer
> 2 ATM switches
> to keep up, as ATM switch vendors have lagged well behind the
> curve in OC48
> and OC192 trunk capability, and IP router vendors haven't
> even put OC48 ATM
> linecards on the market.
>
> -travis
>
>
