Most telcos use the proprietary protocol of their WAN ATM switches. Cisco's
WAN switches, BPX, MGX, and IGX, use autorouting--proprietary. However, you
can buy PNNI for them for a few bucks more. My guess is that most carriers
that sell ATM services, for the most part, sell PVC-based solutions. I don't
see that many companies buying SVCs (for ATM) from carriers; and therefore,
PNNI and routing interoperability is not a big deal. I teach the CATM class
and one thing I really like is the PNNI protocol on the LS1010's--it makes
my life very easy in an SVC environment--a no brainer.
Enjoy!
--
--------------------------------------------
Richard Deal
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Author of the following Coriolis books: CCNP Switching Exam Cram, CCNP
Remote Access Exam Prep, and CCNP Cisco Lan Switch Configuration; as well as
a CCNP test author for www.equizware.com
--------------------------------------------
""NRF"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I am struck by just how few ATM networks actually use PNNI. The few that
I
> have found are small campus networks that have a one-level hierarchy, and
> seemingly only run PNNI because they want to run LANE.
>
> It would seem that PNNI would be extremely beneficial for the large ATM
> clouds run by the telcos. Well-defined hierarchy, integrated QoS, etc.,
> it's all in there. Yet I have yet to encounter a telco that actually uses
> it.
>
> So why is that? Does running PNNI incur too much of a processing load on
> the ATM switches that the telcos don't want to burden them with it? Or
are
> there backwards-compabitility issues? Just why don't more telcos
implement
> PNNI?
>
> Thanx
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5118&t=5098
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
