HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rgdelav@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Butch DeLaVega)
Subject: Re: WDM and ATM
Reply-To: rgdelav@PacBell.COM (Butch DeLaVega)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:38:27 GMT

In article <9212150143.AA16298@iti.gov.sg> bharath@iti.gov.sg (Bharath Narayanan (CCL)) writes:
>I believe WDM stands for Wavelength Division Multiplexing...There were few

I just read an article called "Into the FIBERSPHERE", which is serialized
from a forthcoming book by George Gilder called "Telecosm".  In it he says
that we should wire everybody with fiber and make the network dumb but put
all the smarts in the terminals ( 1 gigabit speed from terminals to the network). 
Then the network will basically function like the atmosphere but with a lot
more bandwidth, 25,000 gigahertz.  I think this is referred to as the 
all-optical network and wave division multiplexing is a key technology for 
this concept.
    ATM was not mentioned in the article, so I was wondering if anybody can
shed light on the concept of the all-optical network and its relationship
to ATM.

Butch DeLaVega

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
From: myoung@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: Re: WDM and ATM
Reply-To: myoung@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 21:35:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.141611.22048@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, cawilco@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Chris A. Wilcox) writes:
>
>It depends on your viewpoint of "an all optical network". Ideally, you
>want the data to stay optical (not revert back to electronics at all)
>all the way from the interface of the generating computer/workstation
>to the interface of the receiving computer/workstation. In this
>scenario that makes ATM practically superfluous ...

  What we do need to do, however, is to strip out at least one optical
channel and use it for global broadcasting over the physical network.  
The purpose of which is for the injection of some small message to some
receiver, possibly for control or direct hops of some sort.

  This can be done by having an extra optical ring connecting all
incoming links in each switch.  The message immediately becomes broadcast 
everywhere, and a receiver with a suitable filter can recover it, check the 
address, and possibly accept it.
From: fboissiere@vms.eurokom.ie
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
Subject: Leased Lines Price Survey
Date: 16 Dec 92 09:07:21 CET
Organization: EuroKom Conferencing Service

I am trying to collect data on leased lines tariffs in different countries
(US, Japan, and European countries). I thought the net might have been 
a good starting point.

Basically what I am looking for is the prices for leased line of
1Mb/s and up.

Would you mind sharing your data with me or/and point me to some
source of informations.

Of course I will summarize the results to the net if I get enough data.

Thanks in advance

Franck
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
Subject: Re: Computers dont like ATM?
Date: 16 Dec 92 05:57:26 GMT
Reply-To: finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute

In article <tl6jc74@sgi.sgi.com> rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes:

>Currently the big holdup is the ODL prices, but when those plummet ("soon"),
>the prices for the gigabit encoder/decoder chips will be the bottleneck.
>*That's* what needs work (e.g., price reduction).

	Ahh.  I see now your misunderstanding or my lack of clarity.
I worry about building gigabit NETWORK links.  That includes the
framing, encoder/decoder, and for 1300nm fiber, the OFC logic needed
to meet Class I compliance.  A typical gigabit fiber link for a
network needs a framer, an encoder, a decoder, an optical transmitter,
a detector and an OFC circuit.  If you are point-to-point you need two
sets to be duplex.

	I can't get there from here today unless I spend circa $1500
for parts alone.  But I can get the parts.  What you call the ODL is
not the majority of the cost.  I agree with you that gigabit
encoder/decoder chips are costly.

>In fact, a lot of the enthusiasm for ATM in LANs sprang originally from
>the hope that with the telcos using ATM, the componenets would be in mcuh
>higher volume that mere LAN use could generate, and thus would be cheaper.
>Ironically, it is the LAN applications that are now pushing the deployment
>schedule for ATM, so the components won't see volume production by the time
>the first ATM LANs start being installed... so prices will be high (at first).

	I do not see 655 Mb/s OC-12 being pushed commercially for LANs
for quite some time.  Some major computer manufacturers are moving
toward 155 Mb/s and decommitting from their originally rosy prediction
of OC-12.  I guessed publicly that it was because OC-12 rates require
costly gigabit links ... meaning gigabit network links.  I still think
that it is a good guess.

	155 Mb/s with ATM's encoding overhead gets me somewhere in the
neighborhood of 80 Mb/s of TCP/IP payload in today's Internet.  Hardly
exciting.  It won't get you the headroom that you need for studio
NTSC.

	For bandwidth in the gigabit domain for LANs, it looks to me
as if Fibre Channel may have a commercial leg-up on ATM in the gigabit
LAN arena.  My problem with Fibre Channel is that it makes the
overhead of ATM carrying Internet packets look quite small by
comparison.

	There is no shortage of players talking a gigabit LAN game.  I
see a shortage of delivery however.  That is true of my effort too.

	We are short on longer distance cabling technology, but have
inexpensive gigabit LAN switching and interface technology running
now.  Silicon development on cabling/net-maintenance is proceeding.
ATM has 155 Mb/s LAN service available commercially, but gigabit
service is a somewhat distant promise.  Fibre Channel will shortly
deliver on gigabit link speed, but is very weak on switching.

	It will be an interesting next two years.
--
Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
From: mark@alsvid.nr.une.edu.au (Mark Garrett Internet: mark@arvak.une.edu.au Phone: +61 66 20 3859)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
Subject: Re: WDM and ATM
Date: 14 Dec 92 00:14:51 GMT
Organization: University of New England - Northern Rivers (Lismore)

From article <1992Nov30.215429.29379@sics.se>, by craig@sics.se (Craig Partridge):
>>From: peterd@pjd.dev.cdx.mot.com (Peter Desnoyers)
>> Secondly, people I've
>> talked to who work with WDM believe that ATM is fundamentally
>> incompatible with the more promising WDM switching mechanisms, due to

> Taking an even wilder viewpoint, there's paper by Cisneros and Bracket in
> the October '91 JSAC (pp. 1348-1360) on how to build an ATM switch
> using a WDM switching fabric.

	I've come across ATM, but what is WDM? What are the specs for WDM?
from the jist of the posting I guess WDM is some form of fast packer switching
with  "Wider" packs ???

	Mark 
-- 
Mark Garrett	Internet:  mark@arvak.une.edu.au	Phone: 	+61 66 20 3859
   University of New England, Northern Rivers, Lismore NSW Australia.
From: cawilco@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Chris A. Wilcox)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
Subject: Re: WDM and ATM
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:16:11 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <1992Dec18.040100.1249@atri.curtin.edu.au> clarke@atri.curtin.edu.au writes:
>
Explanation of WDM deleted...
>
>That's correct, in an all optical network, WDM is used to route the data
>to the appropriate output port. We could then use the all optical
>network as a physical layer medium for an ATM switched network at layer
>2. I don't see any "incompatibility".
>
>	Nathan.

It depends on your viewpoint of "an all optical network". Ideally, you
want the data to stay optical (not revert back to electronics at all)
all the way from the interface of the generating computer/workstation
to the interface of the receiving computer/workstation. In this
scenario that makes ATM practically superfluous if you're going directly
between computers, or at best makes ATM a LAN-level Layer 2 entity.

If you are indeed postulating electronic ATM switches embedded in the
all-optical network, it is no longer all-optical, and you lose a lot of
the benefits of being an all-optical network.
-- 
Chris Wilcox                | "Can we have a table closer to the plot?"
Dept. of Defense            |                      Crowe T. Robot
cawilco@afterlife.ncsc.mil  |                          MST3K
  The views represented here probably aren't held by the DoD. Get over it.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
From: dgr@RODIN (Daniel Robinson)
Subject: Re: Implications for IBM
Organization: Vitalink Communications, Fremont, California
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:35:15 GMT

In article <BzAAwL.CGy@unix.portal.com> kyma@shell.portal.com (Matt J Young) writes:
+
+  Prior to deployment of the new networks, we have to make expli-
+cit their effect on the traditional mainframe business.  To para-
+phrase the CEO of SUN, nobody benefits if IBM is dismembered.
+
+ (stuff deleted)
+
+  The paradox then is a resurgence of simple DOS like systems  in
+the data center with an imperative for multi-tasking on the desk-
+top.
+
+  The new opportunity is for an OS/2 market on the desktop, while
+the  demand for risc in the data center begs for a simple, single
+tasking kernel.

I don't understand this distinction of single and multi-tasking.
Of course there will be multi-tasking on the desktop; however, 
one should not infer a file system on the desktop.  Multi-tasking
is always preferred.  The data center needs a multi-tasking operating
system to maintain multiple contexts, as does the windowing system
on the desktop.

The paradigm of peer machines on desktops being served by slaves
in the back room unnecessarily burdens the network as these desktop
file systems try to move state information between themselves.  That
state information must be moved, but it should be done across the
shortest path: between adjacent servers in the back room.


Dan Robinson
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
From: bharath@iti.gov.sg (Bharath Narayanan (CCL))
Subject: Re: WDM and ATM
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:44:19 GMT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

I believe WDM stands for Wavelength Division Multiplexing...There were few
articles this year IEEE LTS and Network, but off hand I don't have the 
dates.Shall let you know later.
Bharath.

Bharath Narayanan
Information Technology Institute
Singapore
bharath@iti.gov.sg
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
Subject: Re: Computers dont like ATM?
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:02:55 GMT
Reply-To: finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute


In article <tmp0lkg@sgi.sgi.com> rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes:
>finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:

>Well, until the "new" ODLs ("Optical Data Link", a transmitter/receiver pair)
>come out, the best I have seen for a gigabit is *$3000* the pair, *plus* your
>$1500 for other chips. (The new ODLs will drop the ~$3000 to $500 or less...)

	So your observed prices are the same as mine essentially.  You
think that the ODL chips will drop to $500/pair + the encoder/decoder.
That will not reduce the cost of a gigabit fiber network link to
reasonable levels for workstations.

	For short runs of byte wide twisted pair, some of the new
differential drivers can produce at least 500 Mb/s payload for about
$50/pair in handfull quantity.  Point-to-point runs of up to 30 meters
buys you most of the office to wiring closet connections.  We are
working in this area now.

>Well, the HIPPI market is looking quite eagerly at 622 Mb/s ATM (or so
>we've been told), because HIPPI fiber-optic extenders are so expensive
>(over $10K per end). [HIPPI only goes 25m in copper.] And most HIPPI
>users would be willing to settle for 622 instead of 800, given that
>few systems can drive at the full 800 Mb/s anyway...

	The HIPPI market seems to be implementing HIPPI on Fibre Net.
LLNL is moving that way.  The vendors are IBM, Honeywell, Psi Tech and
Ancor.  Fibre Channel is specifically designed to handle the HIPPI
payload as its upper-limit option, hence its attractiveness.

>Well, as somebody pointed out to me, with SONET coding the actual cell
>payload data rate is 135.63 Mb/s, substantially *above* FDDI, especially
>when you consider it's full-duplex continuously.

	IP into 53-bytes produces a roughly 50% penalty with the
existing Internet traffic mix.  That has been discussed here before.
FDDI is less attractive than ATM for other reasons that encoding
overhead I agree.

>+---------------
>| It won't get you the headroom that you need for studio NTSC.
>+---------------

>The people I know who do that sort of stuff think so, with within-frame
>JPEG compression.

	Maybe.  I have heard that now for some years.  I am told from
conferences that the digital studio efforts are not using JPEG.  The
MPEG experience has not been very good so far.  I could be a
spoil-sport and point out that with a gigabit LAN and a multi-Gb/s
switch you don't need video compression.
--
Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
Subject: Re: FDDI Switch (was Re: Comment made at Next Generation Networks conference
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:13:53 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:
+---------------
| my@berlioz.nsc.com (Mike Yip) writes:
| > DEC has built a FDDI switch (22 ports?  36 ports?  I forgot),
| > they showed it in InterOp, but I am not sure if they are shipping yet.
| 
| Was that an "FDDI switch" or a switch using their full duplex
| FDDI-like protocol between the switch and the stations?  The
| protocol some of the rest of us would be glad to consider
| supporting if they'd publish it.
+---------------

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this one, but it seems it could
use a little clarification: The DEC "GigaSwitch" is a 22-port FDDI bridge.
That is, it will bridge between 22 different FDDI rings. [Later models
may do more, they say.] The "Switch" part of the name is that there is
an internal switching fabric between the FDDI ports, so it can bridge
multiple [how many?] packets at the same time on disjoint src/dest paths.

If, on any given ring, it detects that there is just one other station on
that ring *and* that the other station wants to play the full-duplex game
[and making that decision is the only DEC-proprietary part], then that given
ring flips into full-duplex [a bit in the DEC/Motorola/AMD MAC chip], but
keep using FDDI-formatted LLC frames. Rings which have multiple hosts or
single hosts which don't "play" will stay plain FDDI. In any case, the bridge
will switch among *all* of the FDDI rings and full-duplex links equally well
(so you can put fast servers on individual FDX links).

But otherwise, it's just a really fast multi-port bridge.


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510		rpw3@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		(415)390-1673
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94043
From: my@berlioz.nsc.com (Mike Yip)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
Subject: Re: FDDI Switch (was Re: Comment made at Next Generation Networks conference
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:16:43 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor Corp.

In article rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes:
>[and making that decision is the only DEC-proprietary part], then that given
>ring flips into full-duplex [a bit in the DEC/Motorola/AMD MAC chip], but
>
>-Rob

Well, add National Semiconductor's FDDI Chipset into the DEC/Mot/AMD group.
NSC's chip can perform the full duplex operation also.

-- Mike

-- 
| Michael Yip			Email: my@berlioz.nsc.com
| National Semiconductor Corp	Voice: (408) 721-5148
| 
| Of course, this is my own opinion!
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
From: hellstro@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: spect ATM over SDH!
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:49:45 GMT

Hi there!

The SDH standard defines payload capacities for ATM transport
as follows:

The basic VC-4 149.760 Mbit/s capacity offered by the STM-1 carrier
for the ATM transport can be increased by using AU-4 concatenation.
The AU-4s can be concatenated together to form AU-4Xc pointer. The
first AU-4 shall have a normal pointer value. The other AU-4s have
their pointer set to Concatenation Indication value.

The respective VC container for ATM cell transport is VC-4-Xc, which
has the VC-4 capacity multiplied by X (599.040 Mbit/s for X=4,
2 396.160 Mbit/s for X=16 etc.).

Only one VC-4-Xc POH is needed per multi frame. The other columns
(X minus 1) normally used for VC-4 POH carriage are filled with
fixed stuff.

That's all about payload capacities for ATM transport in SDH enviroment.

-Jan
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
Subject: Re: LAN link cost issues
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:47:35 GMT
Reply-To: finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute

In article <to6efqs@sgi.sgi.com> rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes:

>30 meters is too short. The generally-accepted "desk to wiring-closet"
>requirement is 100 meters, and even that is marginal.

	Not really.  100 meters is an encompassing requirement.  30
meters gets you a sizable percentage of point-to-point link distances
in practice.  In our office tower it would handle most workstation to
concentrator links now.  If for a good percentage the interface cost
is several hundreds of dollars less ... you would choose that, no?
There remains the ability to site additional concentrators also.  The
desirability would depend upon the cost savings.  Four sites per floor
is sufficient for complete geographic spread in a good sized
multi-hall office building.

	This is all speculatation though.  When we have proven the
cable technology I can state with reasonable reliability the interface
and chip costs.  I should know in about three to four months.

>Yes, LLNL is very vocal about their approach. Yet when you talk to other
>HIPPI users besides LLNL, you get a different view. (The "Xunet" testbed,
>for example, is using an ATM-based fabric.) I'm not sure how far one vocal
>user can drive the market...

	The true gigabit LAN arena is a small one at present.  LANL is
more a HIPPI proponent.  Work is proceeding on HIPPI LAN standards.
None of these have inexpensive interfaces yet.  Fibre Channel
addresses that via much slower alternative channel rates, but using
that bumps you out of the gigabit arena.

--- ggf
--
Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
From: ag@fokus.gmd.de (A. Gavras)
Subject: Re: ATM & SONET
Organization: GMD-Fokus (Berlin)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:36:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.052727.16282@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred Goldstein [k1io; FN42jk]) writes:
|> 
|> There are so many PHY standards going on now that it's tough to keep
|> track.   Like two different DS-3s (ANSI based on 802.6 and new CCITT 
|> G.7xx based on direct ATM).  Of course, this could all change at the
|> next meeting.  
|> ---
What is this new CCITT G.7xx ? 
I know of the G.707 G.708 G.709 that describe the SDH Level-1, -4, -16 which
is pretty much the same as SONET OC-3, OC-12, OC-48.
I also know of the CCITT called cell based interface described in I.432.
Is it this one that you call direct ATM? Is it the same with that other call
pure ATM?
Can anyone tell the true story?

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Anastassios Gavras, GMD-FOKUS, Hardenbergplatz 2, 1000 Berlin 12, Germany
Tel:+49 30 25499263 FAX:+49 30 25499202 e-mail:gavras@fokus.berlin.gmd.dbp.de
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
Subject: Re: Computers dont like ATM?
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:46:31 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:
+---------------
| 	More pesky, but a problem for all fast LANs now is that Gb/s
| class cable driver parts are very expensive.      ...I think it is
| no coincidence that some 622 Mb/s ATM LAN projects have retrenched
| to 155 Mb/s.  At Gb/s rates you can go parallel copper for about 30 meters.
| ...Beyond 30 meters fiber-optics is suggested.  It is here that things
| are still very expensive.  You need sub-nanosecond parts.
+---------------

Within a year, Gb/s fiber links will cost "in the hundreds" rather than
"in the thousands" of dollars per end. There are *several* (and as far as
I can tell, completely independent) companies planning to announce Gb/s
fiber-optic transceiver pairs (ODLs) "soon" to sell for a *small* fraction
of current Gb/s ODL prices. [I wish I could say more, but I can't. Sorry.]

+---------------
| 	There are a lot of players trying to make this less expensive.
| Parallel coax and parallel plastic fiber reduce the signalling rate,
+---------------

That won't be necessary. You can do a Gb/s for "a few hundred" meters on
the same fiber being used for FDDI today, and that's plenty far for LAN
applications.

[In fact, you could do 125 Mbaud (100 Mb/s, 4:5 coded) at 700 meters with
a $40/pair H-P ODL back in *1988*. It was the insistence on 2km distance
(and thus 1300 nm) that made FDDI so expensive at first. If Gb/s LANs get
held up in standards committees, they'll be expensive, too.]

+---------------
| better or much less expensive gigabit encoder/decoder chips,
+---------------

Currently the big holdup is the ODL prices, but when those plummet ("soon"),
the prices for the gigabit encoder/decoder chips will be the bottleneck.
*That's* what needs work (e.g., price reduction).

+---------------
| I have no feeling about what that may lead to in terms of cost
| reductions.  Volume now is very low.
+---------------

And of course that's the reason prices remain high.

In fact, a lot of the enthusiasm for ATM in LANs sprang originally from
the hope that with the telcos using ATM, the componenets would be in mcuh
higher volume that mere LAN use could generate, and thus would be cheaper.
Ironically, it is the LAN applications that are now pushing the deployment
schedule for ATM, so the components won't see volume production by the time
the first ATM LANs start being installed... so prices will be high (at first).


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510		rpw3@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		(415)390-1673
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94043
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
From: peterd@pjd.dev.cdx.mot.com (Peter Desnoyers)
Subject: Re: WDM and ATM
Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:02:53 GMT

clarke@atri.curtin.edu.au (Nathan Clarke) writes:

>This is true: WDM = Wavelength Division Multiplexing. But I'm not sure
>why "ATM is fundamentally incompatible with the more promising WDM
>switching mechanisms". WDM is an OSI layer 1 (physical layer)
>multiplexing mechanism whereas ATM is at layer 2. WDM (I thought) is
>used merely to mux multiple channels (bit streams) onto one optic
>fibre. The channels themselves may/mayn't have undergone ATM
>multiplexing; there should be no dependency.

Actually, I should have referred to both wavelength division
multiplexing with fast tunable receivers/transmitters and optical
switching. 

Leaving the OSI model aside for a second, in both cases you have a
technology that allows packets to be switched by logic whose speed is
independent of the bitrate of the signal involved, and depends only on
the overall packet rate. This can be taken advantage of by
transmitting the header information at a lower bitrate, and possibly
on a parallel channel or wavelength.

However, any such mechanism is dependent on the ratio of header
information to body information being low; this is not the case for
ATM. 

				Peter Desnoyers
-- 
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay