[110753] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Which is more efficient?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Jan 15 13:31:56 2009
To: "Murphy, Jay, DOH" <Jay.Murphy@state.nm.us>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:56:11 MST."
<A925AC5C659BD64FBA4E84EC3496887307CE1C38@CEXMB4.nmes.lcl>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:31:49 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1232044309_4109P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:56:11 MST, "Murphy, Jay, DOH" said:
> In your humble opinion, which transmission method is more efficient, packet
> or cell?
In my humble opinion, if you care about actual in-the-field efficiency as
opposed to theoretical or in-the-lab results, I think you'll find that there is
enough statistical spread between "best" and "worst" actual hardware for both
packet and cell to swamp the theoretical benefits - there are good packet
processors out there that will kick the butt of most cell gear, and there's
good cell gear that will outperform some packet gear.
And then there's cost issues - if cell is 5% more efficient, but 35% more
expensive, is it really a good choice? (Unless of course you *need* that 5%
to fit through a non-negotiable bandwidth notch someplace - but then you'll
be screwed *anyhow* if your traffic grows 7%).
--==_Exmh_1232044309_4109P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFJb4EVcC3lWbTT17ARAo9MAJ0Q9xUAtaxMtfU/n0B/Rk50iGiBHgCg0el/
UD8xVnWws11YpMrA3XidudU=
=5snu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1232044309_4109P--
