On Oct 29, 6:28am, "Mark Holloway" wrote:
}
} You honestly think ATM is going to take over Gigabit? ATM had its chance in
I don't think it has a chance.
} business. ATM on the WAN is still growing rapidly, but ATM on the LAN is
Actually with technologies such as 10GbE (expected in the next
year or so), [CD]WDM, MPLS, lamba switching (switching of light rays),
etc. I expect that ATM will soon start to die in the WAN as well,
except for legacy networks. ATM is just too expensive, complicated,
and inefficient. It has a 9.4 per cent raw overhead per cell and when
you add in all the gobbledygook necessary to actually use it, the
overhead supposedly comes to 24.5 per cent. On the bottom of page 298
in TND, Priscilla says:
"One disadvantage of ATM is that the overhead for transmitting ATM data
is much higher than the overhead for transmitting traditional LAN
data. The 5-byte header required in each 53-byte ATM cell equals 9.4
percent[sic] overhead. When segmentation and reassembly and ATM
Adaptation Layer (AAL) functionality are added, the overhead can grow
to 13 bytes or 24.5 percent[sic]."
That means that your nice OC3 connection only has a throughput of
117mbps. That is absolutely rediculous.
}-- End of excerpt from "Mark Holloway"
___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
