Re: VCC cost models .... (was Re: Limits on SVCCs)

Tim Salo <salo@msc.edu> Thu, 02 May 1996 14:27 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27988; 2 May 96 10:27 EDT
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27984; 2 May 96 10:27 EDT
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com (maelstrom.nexen.com [204.249.97.5]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA10745; Thu, 2 May 1996 10:19:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA02868 for rolc-out; Thu, 2 May 1996 10:17:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from guelah.nexen.com (guelah.nexen.com [204.249.96.19]) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA02859 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Thu, 2 May 1996 10:17:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from noc.msc.edu (noc.msc.edu [137.66.12.254]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA10707 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Thu, 2 May 1996 10:17:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from uh.msc.edu by noc.msc.edu (5.65/MSC/v3.0.1(920324)) id AA12480; Thu, 2 May 96 09:17:04 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tim Salo <salo@msc.edu>
Received: (salo@localhost) by uh.msc.edu (8.7.1/8.6.6) id JAA06077; Thu, 2 May 1996 09:17:03 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 09:17:03 -0500
Message-Id: <199605021417.JAA06077@uh.msc.edu>
To: jhalpern@us.newbridge.com
Subject: Re: VCC cost models .... (was Re: Limits on SVCCs)
Cc: rolc@nexen.com
X-Orig-Sender: owner-rolc@nexen.com
Precedence: bulk
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe to rolc-request@nexen.com, submissions to rolc@nexen.com
X-Info: Email archive at ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf-mail-archive/rolc/
X-Info: Hypermail archive at http://cell-relay.indiana.edu/mail/archives/rolc/
X-Info: FTP archive at ftp://ftp.nexen.com/pub/rolc/

> Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:30:08 +0500
> From: jhalpern@us.Newbridge.com (Joel Halpern)
> To: gray@ctron.com, gja@bellcore.com
> Subject: Re: VCC cost models .... (was Re: Limits on SVCCs)
> Cc: rolc@nexen.com
> 
> The recent discussion has been suggesting that a cut-through would
> "cost more" than a routed path across an NBMA fabric.
> 
> Maybe I am looking at this differently, but it seems to me definitional
> that a cut-through costs the same or less in real terms.
> 	[...]

I think the [reasonable] assumption upon which these discussions are
based is that in some instances the establishment of a new SVC will
have a real cost associated with it.  Configurations in which this
charging scheme seem more likely are those which include a wide-area
ATM service provided by a carrier.  For example, in a configuration in
which two campus-area ATM networks are interconnected by a wide-area
ATM service, it may be desirable to establish cut-through SVCs within
the campus networks, but use existing VCs over the wide area.

On the other hand, I don't know of any wide-area ATM services which 
currently offer SVCs; I think carriers have a number of technical
issues to address before they can think about pricing for SVCs.

-tjs