[5329] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cisco's AIP vs HSSI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Manning)
Tue Oct 15 11:15:23 1996
From: bmanning@isi.edu (Bill Manning)
To: freedman@netaxs.com (Avi Freedman)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 07:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: bmanning@isi.edu, salo@msc.edu, kri@bellcore.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199610151439.KAA17811@access.netaxs.com> from "Avi Freedman" at Oct 15, 96 10:39:24 am
> >
> > I don't think that HSSI was designed as a point solution
> > until ATM came along. Couching your answers in the context
> > of an ATM solution is presumption, or so it appears to me.
> >
> > --
> > --bill
>
> Are you talking about point-to-point ATM or just point-to-point applications
> in general?
>
> My wild-assed guess would be that about 45% of HSSI boards are running
> point-to-point HDLC or PPP and 45% are running Frame, with the rest SMDS
> and ATM and god knows what else.
>
> Avi
>
The orginal question can be paraphrased as; "which
board is better" (see the subject line).
Tim S. couched his replies in the form of an ATM only
solution. I feel that the HSSI board was not designed
as such. Your comments seem to back up my assertions.
I would claim that for raw throughput, and assuming
the DS3 daughtercard for the AIP, that the HSSI board
delivers more useful bits at the expense of an outboard
CSU. This is based on my feeling that HDLC is more efficent
than ATM signaling/framing.
--
--bill
