North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Exchanges that matter...
- From: Tim Salo
- Date: Thu Dec 05 10:53:52 1996
> Subject: Re: Exchanges that matter...
> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:02:24 -0800
> From: Paul A Vixie <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> ... 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...
From: email@example.com (Tim Salo)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 14:50:11 -0500 (CDT)
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 14:28:27 -0400
> From: Paul Ferguson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -