SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI)

Per Gregers Bilse bilse at
Sat Mar 30 00:38:48 UTC 1996

On Mar 29,  9:20, Mike Trest <trest at> wrote:
> The discussions regarding ATM/SONET and IP over ATM are finally focused
> on a fundamental issue:

In fact, this is getting boring.  Your arguments sound convincing,
but don't really say anything else than "ATM is good".  In
particular, the apparently wide "industry acceptance" is nothing else
than the outcome of the hysteria which invariably surrounds new,
flashy thingies that promise to solve all problems.  It isn't the
first time that essentially non-functional, seriously flawed, and
ridiculously expensive technology is being pursued with great
vigour.  It's techno-religion for the masses and the unwitting, and
the vendors are simply satisfying the demand -- they're in business,
after all, it's what vendors do (and that's fine with me).

The fundamental question which remains without an answer is this: In
which way do my packets benefit if transported by ATM?  Is it
cheaper?  Doesn't look like it.  Do they travel faster?  No.  Can I
send more?  No.  Is it simpler?  No, which means more failure modes
(historical evidence, if nothing else, is plentiful).  Is it more
reliable than the alternatives?  Probably not.  So what do I stand to

------ ___                        --- Per G. Bilse, Mgr Network Operations Ctr
----- /     /  /   __   ___  _/_ ---- EUnet Communications Services B.V.
---- /---  /  /  /  /  /__/  /  ----- Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL
--- /___  /__/  /  /  /__   /  ------ tel: +31 20 6233803, fax: +31 20 6224657
---                           ------- 24hr emergency number: +31 20 421 0865
--- Connecting Europe since 1982  ---; e-mail: bilse at

More information about the NANOG mailing list