How does this compare with SONET/SDH rings, ATM rings defined in Telecordia GR-2837, rings based on a “thin layer of ATM”, or on Ciscos Dynamic Packet Transport technology?
SONET/SDH rings have dedicated protection capacity and typically reserve as much network capacity for the protection circuit as it does for the revenue-generating payload. The SONET/SDH rings are also based on TDM technology and are provisioned point-to-point with no sharing possible of this provisioned capacity. While providing a high level of resilience with sub 50ms switchover in the event of a fiber ring cut, the rings are bandwidth inefficient. ATM and derivative rings typically utilize some SONET/SDH framing and place ATM cells in SONET containers leading to multiple layers of overhead and management. ATM routing protocols alone are unable to provide the level of network protection and automatic protection switching that is provided in standard SONET/SDH facilities. Cisco’s DPT technology is suitable for packet level transport at the OC-3 level and above, but does not scale down to bandwidths below that which are the most prevalent in the access network. The Integral Access PureP
Related Questions
- How does this compare with SONET/SDH rings, ATM rings defined in Telecordia GR-2837, rings based on a "thin layer of ATM", or on Ciscos Dynamic Packet Transport technology?
- The "Innovations" product is an Asterisk based hotel/motel PBX sold under the name of "ComXchange". How does it compare to Complete Concierge?
- How does IP Link compare to the Cisco or Twisted Pair Wave solution?
