|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Cisco's AIP vs HSSI
> While this is certainly true, HDLC is a point-to-point protocol > and not a network protocol, like frame relay, SMDS or ATM. And > HDLC itself isn't quite enough, IMHO, you really need PPP. We run PPP on all non-frame-or-smds and less-than-DS3 links so that the customer (or ourselves, if it came to it) could switch to non- Cisco gear instantly. But we usually leave most cisco-cisco high-speed links at HDLC. My impression is that HDLC was the same efficiency - or moderately more so - than PPP. For what do feel that one *really* needs PPP? Or, to put it another way, maybe we're talking about different things. I'm talking about the HDLC *point-to-point* *network* protocol, as implemented by Cisco, not HDLC the low-low-level point-to-point protocol. > And the efficiency lost to ATM is not 40% as often claimed on this > list, but rather it is 12% less efficient than PPP for TCP. > 10% is the cell header overhead and 2% is due to modulo 48 padding, > given actual traffic at FIX West as measured by kc at NLANR. Quite believable. > --Kent > > We return to our regularly scheduled ATM tweaking program now in > progress. > :-) :) Avi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|