From: Kyle Galusha (kgalusha@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed May 31 2000 - 11:56:25 GMT-3
The main advantage of SVCs is that you don't manually nail up a bunch of PVCs.
SVCs allow the atm "cloud" to dynamically find the best path through a network
of atm switches running PNNI. For example if a path used by a PVC become unav
ailable because of a hardware failure (or fiber seeking backhoe) the path is do
wn. If you are using SVCs the call is dynamically set up and the path is selec
ted on whatever paths are available (kind of link dynamic routing at layer 3 bu
t done at layer 2). So layer three protocols may never know that a layer 2 path
has changed.
On the down side CLIP only works for IP and LANE is "usually" a campus solution
, not a wan solution.
Hope this make sense,
Kyle
At 07:06 AM 5/31/2000 -0700, Jeff Sapiro wrote:
>My only experience with ATM is at a large ISP that
>used PVC spokes for it's customers. I'm studying the
>configs for SVC's, CLIP, and LANE, and I don't see the
>advantage of using these, other than dynamic address
>resolution. LANE seems particularly complex for this
>small piece of functionality. Anybody have real world
>examples of where these approaches are more
>appropriate than PVC's? It would really help my
>understanding of the configs.
>-Jeff
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:23:32 GMT-3