North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Exchanges that matter...
> Subject: Re: Exchanges that matter... > Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:02:24 -0800 > From: Paul A Vixie <email@example.com> > [...] > ... and they aren't subject to ATM's cell tax ... I am surprised, (well, maybe not), that you aren't concerned about the excessive overhead present in FDDI networks... -tjs From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Tim Salo) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 14:50:11 -0500 (CDT) > Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 14:28:27 -0400 > From: Paul Ferguson <email@example.com> > [...] > Recall Jerry Scharf's numbers; they're indicative of the issue. > [...] > HDLC framing bytes = 3080633605 HDLC efficiency = 97.72 > ATM framing bytes = 3644304857 ATM efficiency = 82.61 > ATM w/snap framing bytes = 3862101043 ATM w/snap efficiency = 77.95 At a certain point, some of these arguments about ATM efficiency sound a bit like saying FDDI is terrible because 4B/5B encoding is only 80% efficient. I think a more interesting measure of the value of ATM versus other wide-area technologies is some sort of measure of throughput per dollar. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -