Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:00:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com> To: Richard Hodges <rh@matriplex.com> Cc: atm@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Marconi ForeRunner HE 155 and HE622 Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.10.10105152151590.14362-100000@spider.pilosoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10105151815030.52241-100000@mail.matriplex.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSO.4.10.10105152151590.14362-100000>