Do you see the carriers continuing to build, operate, administer and manage 2 or more distinct networks? one for Voice, another for data and perhaps if they like this philosophy so much, another for image?
Ian, of course. Especially the larger, highly capitalized carriers. The smaller ones may only deploy a single network infrastructure type, but it certainly won't always be ATM based. Some will, some won't. IP over SONET (or even direclty over DWDM) will be suitable (and cheaper) for those niche carriers where QoS is not important.
Here's an interesting article (somewhat dated, but actually more relevant now, than when it was written).
data.com
Note the highly contrary view to Fumble's view on the relative simplicity of POS versus AOS.
... or could you conceive that they just might like to have one integrated network with the resulting "potential" increases in efficiency and effectiveness?
I think the referenced article addresses a "lack of efficiency" of ATM. But besides this, there is no single panacea in the networking world. ATM will get its fair share of edge and backbone wins. But even NN knows it will have to adapt to an IP world.
And if you were a carrier, would you prefer to put all your eggs in a CSCO IP basket or a NN ATM basket?
Depends on the type of network I was building. I certainly wouldn't choose NN for IP, yet :) I would be inclined to pick NN (or LU) for ATM.
But I wouldn't start by assuming that all posters on this thread are naive.
I would never "assume" any poster was naive.
gary |
