North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: Q:Why router with ATM interface comes out earlier than pure SONET interface?
> | 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. > > Tony Why not just make ATM variable cell size altogether? Tongue planted firmly in cheek, Chris 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 <[email protected]> 1100 Ashwood Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30338 <[email protected]> "Turnaucka's Law: The attention span of a computer is only as long as its electrical cord." -- /usr/games/fortune