Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?

Sat Aug 10 02:24:35 UTC 2002

On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 01:13:04PM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> 
>     > Personally, I don't believe that ATM is 'bad' for
>     > shared-fabric exchange point. I mean, it works, and solves several
>     > problems quite easy: a) it's easily distributed via SONET services to
>     > folks who are not next to the ATM switch, b) it makes interconnection
>     > between networks safer (ie, not dealing with broadcast issues on a
>     > ethernet nap), c) virtual PI connections are easily accomplished, d) there
>     > are varying degrees of interconnection speed (agreeably, less important),
> 
> All of the above are true of frame relay as well, which has the additional
> benefit of not being funamentally incompatible with data networking.  :-)

I doubt that any of the ATM-based echanges were built because
of a deep affection for ATM.  More likely, it was the only
virtual circuit techonlogy around at the the time that a certain
router vendor supported at speeds greater than DS3.

ATM worked reasonably well for that application, once there
were switches with adequate buffering.

Anyone building a similar exchange today would have new choices
not available three or more years ago.

	Steve