[e2e] on local ethernet throughput?

[Christian Huitema]

> >The carriers understand they have to deliver individual DSL lines
> >back to any CLEC that resells the DSL service.  I.e. CLEC needs to be
> >able to map something coming into their network as being from a
> particular
> >customer line that they rent from the CLEC.  The carriers needed,
> therefore,
> >some way to take a set of DSL physical lines and distribute them,
> flexibly,
> >and individually to various CLECs.  They hit on ATM circuits as the
> way to
> >do it -- not optimal, but not stupid either.
> 
> I was complaining about the equipment companies, not the carriers.
> Yes, of
> course, there is a thought process under which this makes sense -
> especially if you think that the Internet is an aberration and what
> the
> primary market wants is dialup, broadband *circuits*.  

David, I think you are wrong on this one. The carriers were under an FCC
requirement to allow customers to choose their own ISP. That pretty much
mandates some form of switching "below IP" so that the bits sent by the
DSL modem are delivered to the chosen ISP, regardless of the value of
the destination IP address. As Craig said, ATM makes some sense; there
are alternatives such as frame relay and MPLS, or PPPoE for that matter;
whether the alternatives are better or worse is debatable. You can only
use "straight IP" if you accept that whoever provides the media
connectivity also provides the IP service, which may or may not be a
desirable outcome.

-- Christian Huitema