Q:Why router with ATM interface comes out earlier than pure SONET interface?

George Janosik gjanosik at torrentnet.com
Mon Aug 3 22:57:10 UTC 1998

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.

   Next Generation Routing and Services  
            George Janosik               
          Sr Systems Engineer              
       New Business Development          
       gjanosik at torrentnet.com           

More information about the NANOG mailing list