[18528] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Q:Why router with ATM interface comes out earlier than
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Janosik)
Mon Aug 3 19:06:39 1998
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 18:57:10 -0400
To: "Christian Kuhtz" <ck@bellsouth.net>
From: George Janosik <gjanosik@torrentnet.com>
Cc: "Tony Li" <tli@juniper.net>, <tex@shrubbery.net>, <yuning@mindless.com>,
<nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <000101bdbf2e$9cfba420$2b0698cd@oreo.eng.bellsouth.net>
At 06:32 PM 8/3/98 , Christian Kuhtz wrote:
>> | 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?
The old story was that the Telco guys wanted 32 byte payload and the data
guys wanted a 64 byte payload and the ITU split the difference. Go figure.
TORRENT NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES CORP
Next Generation Routing and Services
George Janosik
Sr Systems Engineer
New Business Development
412.851.1103
gjanosik@torrentnet.com
<http://www.torrentnet.com/>http://www.torrentnet.com
