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.
TORRENT NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES CORP
Next Generation Routing and Services
George Janosik
Sr Systems Engineer
New Business Development
412.851.1103
gjanosik at torrentnet.com
<http://www.torrentnet.com/>http://www.torrentnet.com
More information about the NANOG
mailing list