Be interesting to see the full context of this. Where it came from might clue one into any bias. I do know the are issue scaling ATM SVC's but we have a huge ATM backbone.
Dave John Green wrote: > > IP and ATM failed to deliver ? > > well i don't say this but got this from the web site > of a competitor of cisco!! > But that is besides the point. Below I have reproduced > the text verbatim. > what it says that both IP and ATM failed as carriers > to carry puredata > due to different reasons as explained below. IP due to > the packet > forwarding features in traditional routers (i guess > cisco), and ATM > because it itself could not scale to the levels > required for pure data. > well would some one explain this what and how exactly > ? specially how > ATM fails to scale for data traffic ? > "Although both ATM and IP held the promise of building > converged > networks in principle, neither actually delivered in > practice. ATM > networks were unsuccessful because they could not > scale to the levels > required for pure data applications. Traditional IP > networks failed > because they used legacy routers that implemented > forwarding and > features in software. These routers were not able to > achieve anywhere > near the performance needed for delivering services at > speed. So > providers had to choose between providing simple > connectivity with no > services or providing poor performance with services enabled." > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals > http://personals.yahoo.com -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=26269&t=26245 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
