North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: NANOG
- From: Marc E. Hidalgo
- Date: Wed Apr 03 17:30:37 1996
whoa,
After all that, I knew IP/ATM had to show up somewhere! ;-)
Marc
On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Wolfgang Henke wrote:
>
> bob_metcalfe@infoworld.com (Bob Metcalfe) wrote:
> Perhaps I am confusing terms here. How can it be a fact that
> "store-and-forward delays are a mere fraction of wire propagation delays?"
> I don't think so. Check me on this:
>
> Packets travel over wires at large fractions of the speed of light, but
> then sadly at each hop they must be received, checked, routed, and then
> queued for forwarding. Do I have that right?
>
> Forget checking, routing, and queueing (ha!), and you get, I think, that
> store and forward delay is roughly proportional to the number of hops times
> packet length divided by circuit speed (N*P/C).
>
> For 10 hops of a thousand bit packet at Ethernet speed, that would be 1 ms,
> or a couple hundred miles of prop delay. Check me on this, one of us might
> be off by several orders of magnitude.
>
>
>
> Hmm...
>
> Using a real in use backbone of one of the mayor service providers,
> I find that a DS3 between silicon valley to Chicago has a 44 msec
> latency going through 4 hops. That's about the speed of light in
> fiber for the 5000 mile roundtrip ICMP ping packets.
>
> Using ATM will reduce the router latency. I estimate that with TCP/IP
> over ATM over SONET OC-3c the latency will be reduced from 44 msec
> to 40 msec, only a rather small improvement. The bandwidth used on the
> fiber wont matter much. With OC-12c I would still expect 40 msec or so
> since the speed of light in fiber is the limiting factor.
>
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
|
