Q:Why router with ATM interface comes out earlier than pure SONET interface?
ck at bellsouth.net
Mon Aug 3 22:32:35 UTC 1998
> | 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.
Why not just make ATM variable cell size altogether?
Tongue planted firmly in cheek,
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 at bellsouth.net>
1100 Ashwood Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30338 <ck at gnu.org>
"Turnaucka's Law: The attention span of a computer is only as long as its
electrical cord." -- /usr/games/fortune
More information about the NANOG