ATM Utility

Wed Nov 2 14:41:33 UTC 1994

Also, please also do not confuse Vadim's individual opinion with the opinion 
of Sprint.  Sprint also recognizes the cost-benefits of a fast packet service 
versus point-to-point circuits.  One of the primary reasons we pursued an ATM 
strategy in advance of many others was due to the cost-benefits in our 
backbone...There are a litany of other reasons which I would be happy to 
pontificate...Pushpendra, no criticism intended, but I would probably argue 
that our stockholders do not consider the cost of additional network capacity 
as "funny-money"....

Bob Doyle
Sprint

> From: Pushpendra Mohta <pushp at CERF.NET> 
> Message-Id: <199411020630.WAA05172 at mystic.cerf.net> 
> Subject: Re: ATM Utility 
> To: boone at prep.net (Jon 'Iain' Boone) 
> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 22:30:14 -0800 (PST) 
> Cc: avg at sprint.net, tjs at msc.edu, nanog at merit.edu, nap at hq.si.net 
> In-Reply-To: <Pine.ULT.3.91.941101155015.2348E-100000 at nic.prep.net> 
> from "Jon 'Iain' Boone" at Nov 1, 94 03:53:24 pm 
> X-Usmail: CERFnet, P.O. BOX 85608, San Diego, CA 92186-9784 
> Mime-Version: 1.0 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
> Content-Length: 1993      
> 
> Jon 'Iain' Boone writes: 
> > 
> > On Mon, 31 Oct 1994, Vadim Antonov wrote: 
> > 
> > > >cost-effective in a number of applications today.  In particular, 
> > > >the cost of wide-area DS-3 ATM services can be very attractive 
> > > >when compared to a number of point-to-point DS-3s. 
> > > 
> > > TAANSTAFL.  You keep forgetting that underneath ATM there are the 
> > > same SONET or clearline DS-3s/OC-3s etc.  So, just by using IP 
> > > routers instead of ATM switches you get 30% more bandwidth for the 
> > > same price. ATM does not appear to make economical sense when 
> > > applied to both data and voice communications.  So, from the point 
> > > of view of a user purchasing something carriers offer ATM may make 
> > > sense (if carrier does not offer native IP) -- but from the point 
> > > of view of a carrier ATM does not look that attractive. 
> > > 
> > > You still have to run IP over ATM (there's no such thing as native 
> > > ATM applications yet), and the extra level of encapsulation does 
> > > not bring anything worth 30% of bandwidth. 
> > > 
> > > In terms of real switching capacity (i.e. user data payload) the 
> > > new generation of IP routers is pretty much close to ATM 
> > > switches -- and quite cheaper. 
> > 
> >   But, if you don't need the full 45 Mb/s, you can find a more 
> > cost-effective solution in the wide-area Fast-packet services.  In 
> > the case of the MCI Hyperstream offerings, you don't have to pay for 
> > the full amount of a circuit from point A to point B -- you simply 
> > pay a monthly subscription fee and then a usage charge per Megabyte 
> > of data. 
> > 
> >   So, you can build a multi-megabit/s backbone that is (say) 10 Mb/s 
> > and not end up having to purchase the entirety of the DS3 circuits 
> > needed to provision it. 
> > 
> 
> Indeed. 
> 
> Vadim works for a phone company, where long haul SONET links are 
> funny money. Not like the rest of us :-) 
> 
> --pushpendra 
> 
> Pushpendra Mohta              pushp at cerf.net        +1 619 455 3908 
> Director of Engineering                             +1 800 876 2373 
> CERFNet 
> 
> 