Hisham, first thank you for replying and clearing up some of the matters I alluded to.
I retract my use of the term bogus, perhaps I should have stated "my own confusion" instead.
Upon further investigation, however, I still have the same questions... maybe nearing a point where I am satisfied for my own purposes, but let's take it a step further.
If you look at the inherent capabilities of the ATM devices, e.g., the core 550 unit, you will note that the only reference to IETF protocols are in the categories of network management and reporting. I refer you to:
ascend.com
This presented an apparent shortcoming to ASND, obviously, otherwise they would not have amended its library of capabilities with the Nav product. The answer to this then, where native routing capabilities are concerned, does lie in the IP Navigator, as you have stated. But, at a price, IMO.
The following from the ASND web site briefly describes what IPNav is all about:
===========begin clip
IP Navigator
IP Navigatorâ„¢ provides a full range of IP services to the carrier-class B-STDX 8000/9000, CBX 500 and GX 550 multiservice WAN switches, merging connectionless (Layer 3) with connection-oriented (Layer 2) Frame Relay and ATM services. With IP Navigator the switches can achieve superior performance while enhancing reliability, reducing latency, and scaling to over 200,000 routes. IP Navigator uses the devices' fully-distributed switching capabilities to provide guaranteed bandwidth, predictable service and end-to-end Quality of Service (QoS) for IP traffic. As more users are added to the network, end-to-end QoS is critical to differentiate among users and to provide appropriate service levels.
Innovative use of existing technologies provides scalability, subnets and direct switched paths
IP Navigator uses Ascend's existing Frame Relay and ATM Interfaces and provides a multiservice environment for switching IP, utilizing pre-established direct virtual switched paths between all edge switches in the network. Ascend has implemented true native IP routing protocols on the switch; OSPF, BGP-4, RIP-2, TCP/IP and static routing for communication with other IP devices and/or networks. OSPF areas have been implemented for scalability and creating subnetworks. Traffic filters are enabled for source/destination addresses and protocol filtering. And, IP Navigator is extremely scalable — capable of supporting more than 200,000 routes, which is impressive given that today's Internet is under 50,000 routes.
=============end clip
We therefore have the capabilities you cited, however, these appear to me to be IP over switched layer adaptations, and although the native protocols can be "mapped," managed and ultimately transported over the lower layers, these do not equate to pure IP routing, per se.
What's the difference? Probably not a whole lot, unless you are counting overhead costs. When I transmit IP over ATM, I can achieve many or all of benefits as described above, and as described in other passages in their web site.
But. IMO, I do this at a cost that may be too taxing and complicated for some users' needs, and those are the points I would ask you to consider for your next reply, if you so choose.
Am I far off with this, or will you give some ground here?
Another point I'd like to make is that I view ASND very favorably in the space they occupy, and my questioning of their claims is purely from the standpoint of wanting to have a clearer understanding of their line. You cannot blame me, however, for being a little shell-shocked and skeptical these days, when spin and vapor amount to the majority of what we read in press releases. On this latter topic, as my Southern Italian grandpa used to say,
"Pleash, don' getta me shtarted..."
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
