RE: Q:Why router with ATM interface comes out earlier than pure SONET interface?

[George Janosik]

At 06:32 PM 8/3/98 , Christian Kuhtz wrote:
>> |  	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?

The old story was that the Telco guys wanted 32 byte payload and the data
guys wanted a 64 byte payload and the ITU split the difference.  Go figure.

   TORRENT NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES CORP  
                                         
   Next Generation Routing and Services  
                                         
            George Janosik               
          Sr Systems Engineer              
       New Business Development          
            412.851.1103                 
       gjanosik@torrentnet.com           
                                         
      <http://www.torrentnet.com/>http://www.torrentnet.com