jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Noel Chiappa) wrote on 20.11.04 in <20041120210236.B218E872C9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > From: kaih@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kai Henningsen)
>
> >>> I know B-ISDN types said the same
>
> >> Funny thing you should mention B-ISDN.
>
> >> Another group of people who thought that because a major standards
> >> organization wrote specs, and a whole bunch of manufacturers poured a
> >> ton of money into building the gear, it would necessarily take over
> >> the world.
>
> > I don't know about the world, but it's certainly taken over the
> > nation. Everytime someone comes up and says "but just look at how ISDN
> > failed", I go "Huh?! That's a strange way of spelling "was wildly
> > successful"!
>
> B-ISDN != ISDN.
>
> B-ISDN == ATM (more or less).
Not really, from what Google tells me. ATM is just one possible transport.
Anyway, ATM is the other input into my first so-called "DSL modem", the
one next to the ethernet input (and typically used for non-dynamic
connections). I'm also told it's what happens on the outgoing line until
it hits the other side of the "ethernet bridge" of which that "modem" is
one endpoint. (I hear people are really happy the "last mile" is still
copper.)
Or to put it differently, I gather that at least the ex-monopoly does ATM
for at least most of their non-IP internal infrastructure - don't know
what their IP backbone is based on. And for larger IP customer connects,
IIRC, unless that's recently changed.
(I probably ought to mention that they built one of the better IP
backbones after they stopped being the monopoly (putting pressure on Cisco
to make their routers come up to their marketing). Maybe it's just a
company culture of at least sometimes being able to take the long view?
They're also running their own Usenet news (binary-free) and high-quality
Usenet helpdesk - quite unlike I hear of big ISPs elsewhere ("XX000
groups! uncensored binary groups!").)
MfG Kai
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf