Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (20974)	1/20/1999 9:34:00 PM
From: Jay Couch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77397

Frank, I misspoke... they are different, but as you say, not separate. If you want ATM across a broadband (Network-to-Network) connection, then you use ATM over SONET (or SDH, in Europe and Japan). I agree whole-heartedly that SONET and SDH are going nowhere. I contend that, while ATM over SONET is popular now, IP over SONET will eventually eclipse it. ATM's QoS advantages over IP will be dwindling, and, it's cost will not be warranted anymore, IMO. Of course, what do I know? I just don't think that people should worry so much about ASND's supposed expertise in ATM, since it won't be the only broadband access protocol. Anyway, your responses are appreciated. I value your opinion. Jay

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (20974)	1/21/1999 2:04:00 AM
From: Tera Bit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77397

>the ATM media convergence sub-layer, by design, fits the sizing of SONET >tributaries like a glove. This was no coincidence; Is there anything intrinsic to DWDM which would prevent the ATM forum from building a transmission convergence sub-layer to it? ASND has really used crafty marketure to imply that their switches can interface directly to DWDM. As near as I can tell, they are interfacing to a SONET box which also has DWDM capabilities. I am not sure why that is special but perhaps I don't understand their PRs. The prevailing wisdom by many smart people is indeed, that the "ongoing improvements in class-of-service (CoS) and QoS characterizations in IP", will obsolete ATM. The argument, as you well know is that the ATM cell tax is inefficient. It's ironic that many people arguing that, also believe cheap bandwidth, made possible by photonic switching/DWDM, obviates the need for traffic engineering. The argument is of course, that you just built bigger pipes. The efficiency of that strategy, as opposed to an ATM "cell tax", is questionable in my view. Finally, the efforts of the DiffServ/RSVP working groups may eventually provide acceptable QoS to IP. But I sometimes wonder at what cost? I don't pretend to be close to those working groups but as near as I can tell, they are just moving the "complicated" signalling mechanisms of ATM up the protocol stack. When do you (or anyone) expect their efforts to be deployed(and functioning)in a ILEC, CLEC, or ISP network?