[18527] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Q:Why router with ATM interface comes out earlier than pure SONET interface?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian Kuhtz)
Mon Aug 3 18:41:05 1998
From: "Christian Kuhtz" <ck@bellsouth.net>
To: "Tony Li" <tli@juniper.net>, <tex@shrubbery.net>
Cc: <yuning@mindless.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 18:32:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <199808032150.OAA23749@chimp.juniper.net>
> | Okay, so given all the great features that ATM is supposed to have
> | and the only thing that really sucks about it is the overhead
> due to the 53
> | byte cell size, the obvious question is why can't there be an
> ATM standard
> | with, say, 197 ( 4 times the current 48 byte payload) or even 389 ( 8
> | times 48 ) byte cells?
> | Is there something magic about 53 or is the IP over ATM application
> | still so 'obscure' that there is no interest?
>
>
> Increasing the cell size lowers the efficiency further.
>
> 53 is an ATM architectural constant. Change it, and it's no longer ATM.
> Change it, and you're no longer interoperable.
>
> Tony
Why not just make ATM variable cell size altogether?
Tongue planted firmly in cheek,
Chris
PS: Actually, overhead is not "the only thing that really sucks". Being
connection-oriented at the transport layer is another.
--
Christian Kuhtz, BellSouth Corp., Sr. Network Architect <ck@bellsouth.net>
1100 Ashwood Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30338 <ck@gnu.org>
"Turnaucka's Law: The attention span of a computer is only as long as its
electrical cord." -- /usr/games/fortune
