[4937] in North American Network Operators' Group
ATM v/s SONET
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bharat Ranjan)
Wed Oct 2 19:36:03 1996
From: Bharat Ranjan <bharatr@microsoft.com>
To: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 16:19:32 -0700
>
>Vendors such as Fore are starting to offer OC-3c/12/c and OC-48c (future)
>interfaces on their ATM switches. Using these interfaces, the switches can be
>connected together in a ringlike fashion. A service offered when connected in
>a ring is called Fast Failover Recovery, or something along that line. This
>service provides functionality that is identical to SONET
>protection-switching. Basically, bandwidth is reserved around the ring for
>protection scenarios. When the ATM switches detect failure (fiber cut, node
>failure, etc.), they recreate the VP around the opposite direction of the
>ring using the reserved bandwidth. This is done at the ATM level, versus the
>physical level for SONET. As expected, the switchover time is in seconds
>versus the milliseconds for SONET.
>
>For networks that carry data that is not sensitive to this increased
>switchover time, does it make sense to use SONET at all? The question comes
>down to why do you need a SONET ring when then same functionality and speed
>is provided by the ATM ring?
mm mm sssss nnnnnn * Bharat Ranjan *
m m m s nnnnnnn * Network Engineer *
m m m sssss nn nn * MSN Network Services *
m m s nn nn * (206)-936-0471 *
m m sssss nn nn * bharatr@microsoft.com *
*******************************************************
* The opinions/ideas in this memo are not necessarily *
* those of Microsoft Corp. *
*******************************************************
>
>
>
>
