From owner-freebsd-atm Tue May 15 18:53: 3 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-atm@freebsd.org Received: from spider.pilosoft.com (p55-222.acedsl.com [160.79.55.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5575F37B423 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 18:52:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alex@pilosoft.com) Received: from localhost (alexmail@localhost) by spider.pilosoft.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA30776; Tue, 15 May 2001 22:00:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:00:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Pilosov To: Richard Hodges Cc: atm@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Marconi ForeRunner HE 155 and HE622 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-atm@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 15 May 2001, Richard Hodges wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2001, Jin Guojun wrote: > > > A few years ago, the ATM seems the best one to build a WAN backbone. > > But the VC is painful and the overhead is high 5/48 ==> 10%. > > Agreed. It is quite an overhead when you have "only" an OC3 or less. > But if I had plenty of fiber, and OC48 or better it would probably > not matter that much. With all the fiber installed everywhere, why > are the phone companies not selling tons of bandwidth? My guess is > that they don't have a market for the bandwidth, and would rather > sell off tiny slivers, one T1 here, one DS3 there... I hear of so > much dark fiber, that it seems that the fiber owners are not really > concerned with the "cell tax" right now. Correct. Right now, the problem is the fact that high-bandwidth ATM switches don't exist. You can buy a 4xOC-48 router which fits in 3U of space, but similar ATM switch will run you 10x more money and takes up entire rack. But this is hardly a topic for -net ;) -alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-atm" in the body of the message