RE: Why 53-bytes for a cell & AL GORE
Politics is the art of compromise, which in and of itself is not necessarily a Bad Thing. I would venture the opinion that both 32 and 64 are poor choices in this more modern age. What was suitable or viable 10-15 years ago is no longer so. Data folks are now seriously discussing MTU's in the multiple K range. Which makes the voice folks nervous, because voice still performs better with smaller packets. This BTW has serious implications on the Internet, as more people and companies increase their use of the internet as their own transport mechanism , using VPN's. Howard? - Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of SI cable news Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 10:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell & AL GORE The agreement for a 53 byte cell is the worst mistake made by politicians, it should be a 2^X for acceptable optimized and efficient transportation Either 32 or 64 was acceptable This is a classic example of politicians intervening in standards committee. Prasad ""Rahul Kachalia"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi All, > > There were several different reasons for choosing such smaller size of > payload carrier some of them as follows : > > Why such a small-sized packet for ATM? Why not larger than 48 bytes in the > payload (48 bytes is very, very small)? The answer to that is simple. ATM > and the inventors of ATM targeted the single challenge-to reduce delay in > the network. If we have large packets they take a long time to assemble.For > instance, we know that a DS0, Plain Old Telephony service is running at > 64,000 bits per second. If you take that 64,000 bits per second and divide > it by 8000, which is an 1/8000 of a second, you end up with 8 bits every > 1/8000 of a second. > That's very repeatable; its going to be the same in any country. If we > know we're getting 8 bits, or 1 byte every 1/8000 of a second, we know that > filling up a packet is going to take a measurable amount of time (1 byte > every 125 microseconds). If we make the packet long, it's going to take a > long time to fill it up. This is called cell assembly delay. In order to > maintain delay constraints that were targeted towards ATM, they decided to > make these packets very, very small. It would have been better for file > transfer for data application to have a longer packet, but they erred on the > side of voice-to maintain a Quality of Service for voice in a packet > network, similar to today's TDM networks. That's why it was so small. It's > all about that cell assembly delay. > Voice and video applications are sensitive to delay, especially when it's > interactive. When you're talking to someone on the phone, and they're > talking back at you, this is where delay becomes very important. We have a > test that we often do for this kind of thing: if I were to say "one," and > then you were to say "two," and I were to say "three," and we were to go > back and forth as quickly as possible, we would be able to understand > exactly how much delay exists in this interactive conversation. It's a great > test for delay. > For non-interactive, for instance, when I'm just speaking to you, and > there's no real interaction with me, delay isn't as important. Perhaps we > could have gotten away with longer packets for this type of application. ATM > elected to default to the best performance for interactive voice. > > hope this helps everyone... > > regards > rahul. > > > > > ---------------------- -- > > (c) 1984-2000 TRA. All Rights Reserved. > - Original Message - > From: "Circusnuts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "themitmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 4:29 AM > Subject: Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell & AL GORE > > > > Al Gore thought up the 53-byte cell after he invented the Internet :-) > > > > Honestly- the best ATM books I've read (that were readable & not a bunch > of > > algorithms) were Global Knowledge's beginner series. They explain > > international agreements between cell sizes, echo, QOS, etc., etc.,. The > > best ATM working explanation I've ever read, is Chapter 7 in the CCNA WAN > > Quick Start book (& I usually don't like Cisco Press :-) > > > > Good Luck !!! > > Phil > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "themitmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >
Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell & AL GORE
The agreement for a 53 byte cell is the worst mistake made by politicians, it should be a 2^X for acceptable optimized and efficient transportation Either 32 or 64 was acceptable This is a classic example of politicians intervening in standards committee. Prasad ""Rahul Kachalia"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi All, > > There were several different reasons for choosing such smaller size of > payload carrier some of them as follows : > > Why such a small-sized packet for ATM? Why not larger than 48 bytes in the > payload (48 bytes is very, very small)? The answer to that is simple. ATM > and the inventors of ATM targeted the single challenge-to reduce delay in > the network. If we have large packets they take a long time to assemble.For > instance, we know that a DS0, Plain Old Telephony service is running at > 64,000 bits per second. If you take that 64,000 bits per second and divide > it by 8000, which is an 1/8000 of a second, you end up with 8 bits every > 1/8000 of a second. > That's very repeatable; its going to be the same in any country. If we > know we're getting 8 bits, or 1 byte every 1/8000 of a second, we know that > filling up a packet is going to take a measurable amount of time (1 byte > every 125 microseconds). If we make the packet long, it's going to take a > long time to fill it up. This is called cell assembly delay. In order to > maintain delay constraints that were targeted towards ATM, they decided to > make these packets very, very small. It would have been better for file > transfer for data application to have a longer packet, but they erred on the > side of voice-to maintain a Quality of Service for voice in a packet > network, similar to today's TDM networks. That's why it was so small. It's > all about that cell assembly delay. > Voice and video applications are sensitive to delay, especially when it's > interactive. When you're talking to someone on the phone, and they're > talking back at you, this is where delay becomes very important. We have a > test that we often do for this kind of thing: if I were to say "one," and > then you were to say "two," and I were to say "three," and we were to go > back and forth as quickly as possible, we would be able to understand > exactly how much delay exists in this interactive conversation. It's a great > test for delay. > For non-interactive, for instance, when I'm just speaking to you, and > there's no real interaction with me, delay isn't as important. Perhaps we > could have gotten away with longer packets for this type of application. ATM > elected to default to the best performance for interactive voice. > > hope this helps everyone... > > regards > rahul. > > > > > ---------------------- -- > > © 1984-2000 TRA. All Rights Reserved. > - Original Message - > From: "Circusnuts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "themitmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 4:29 AM > Subject: Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell & AL GORE > > > > Al Gore thought up the 53-byte cell after he invented the Internet :-) > > > > Honestly- the best ATM books I've read (that were readable & not a bunch > of > > algorithms) were Global Knowledge's beginner series. They explain > > international agreements between cell sizes, echo, QOS, etc., etc.,. The > > best ATM working explanation I've ever read, is Chapter 7 in the CCNA WAN > > Quick Start book (& I usually don't like Cisco Press :-) > > > > Good Luck !!! > > Phil > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "themitmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Andy Xing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 8:08 AM > > Subject: Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell? > > > > > > > Because back when they were creating an ATM standard > > > from stratch it had to be some number. I believe there > > > were two factions (US vs. European) on what size the > > > payload area should be. 48 bytes turned out to be the > > > compromise between speed and size. > > > > > > --- Andy Xing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > _ > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > &
Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell & AL GORE
Hi All, There were several different reasons for choosing such smaller size of payload carrier some of them as follows : Why such a small-sized packet for ATM? Why not larger than 48 bytes in the payload (48 bytes is very, very small)? The answer to that is simple. ATM and the inventors of ATM targeted the single challenge-to reduce delay in the network. If we have large packets they take a long time to assemble.For instance, we know that a DS0, Plain Old Telephony service is running at 64,000 bits per second. If you take that 64,000 bits per second and divide it by 8000, which is an 1/8000 of a second, you end up with 8 bits every 1/8000 of a second. That's very repeatable; its going to be the same in any country. If we know we're getting 8 bits, or 1 byte every 1/8000 of a second, we know that filling up a packet is going to take a measurable amount of time (1 byte every 125 microseconds). If we make the packet long, it's going to take a long time to fill it up. This is called cell assembly delay. In order to maintain delay constraints that were targeted towards ATM, they decided to make these packets very, very small. It would have been better for file transfer for data application to have a longer packet, but they erred on the side of voice-to maintain a Quality of Service for voice in a packet network, similar to today's TDM networks. That's why it was so small. It's all about that cell assembly delay. Voice and video applications are sensitive to delay, especially when it's interactive. When you're talking to someone on the phone, and they're talking back at you, this is where delay becomes very important. We have a test that we often do for this kind of thing: if I were to say "one," and then you were to say "two," and I were to say "three," and we were to go back and forth as quickly as possible, we would be able to understand exactly how much delay exists in this interactive conversation. It's a great test for delay. For non-interactive, for instance, when I'm just speaking to you, and there's no real interaction with me, delay isn't as important. Perhaps we could have gotten away with longer packets for this type of application. ATM elected to default to the best performance for interactive voice. hope this helps everyone... regards rahul. © 1984-2000 TRA. All Rights Reserved. - Original Message - From: "Circusnuts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "themitmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 4:29 AM Subject: Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell & AL GORE > Al Gore thought up the 53-byte cell after he invented the Internet :-) > > Honestly- the best ATM books I've read (that were readable & not a bunch of > algorithms) were Global Knowledge's beginner series. They explain > international agreements between cell sizes, echo, QOS, etc., etc.,. The > best ATM working explanation I've ever read, is Chapter 7 in the CCNA WAN > Quick Start book (& I usually don't like Cisco Press :-) > > Good Luck !!! > Phil > > - Original Message - > From: "themitmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Andy Xing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 8:08 AM > Subject: Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell? > > > > Because back when they were creating an ATM standard > > from stratch it had to be some number. I believe there > > were two factions (US vs. European) on what size the > > payload area should be. 48 bytes turned out to be the > > compromise between speed and size. > > > > --- Andy Xing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > _ > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > __ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. > > http://im.yahoo.com/ > > > > _ > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell & AL GORE
Al Gore thought up the 53-byte cell after he invented the Internet :-) Honestly- the best ATM books I've read (that were readable & not a bunch of algorithms) were Global Knowledge's beginner series. They explain international agreements between cell sizes, echo, QOS, etc., etc.,. The best ATM working explanation I've ever read, is Chapter 7 in the CCNA WAN Quick Start book (& I usually don't like Cisco Press :-) Good Luck !!! Phil - Original Message - From: "themitmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Andy Xing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 8:08 AM Subject: Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell? > Because back when they were creating an ATM standard > from stratch it had to be some number. I believe there > were two factions (US vs. European) on what size the > payload area should be. 48 bytes turned out to be the > compromise between speed and size. > > --- Andy Xing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks > > > > > > _ > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. > http://im.yahoo.com/ > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell?
I read a few of the entries to answer your question and I disagree with them so far. I have read that in fact there were 2 committees involved with the established cell size, and it was in fact a compromise. I wished I had my book Computer Networks (which is a wonderful book) cause then I would be able to name the committees involved. One committee wanted to use 32 byte cells and the other wanted to use 64 byte cells the compromise was 48 the 5 additional bytes were added as the header and therefore the present cell size for ATM is 53 bytes. My 2 cents >>>Brian >From: "Andy Xing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Andy Xing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Why 53-bytes for a cell? >Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:58:33 +0800 > >Thanks > > >_ >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why 53-bytes for a cell?
Compromised between Europe and US. As I recalled from ATM/UNI forum, Europe wanted 64 US wanted 32, they compromised at 48 (in between) + 5 for control. > -Original Message- > From: Andy Xing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 3:59 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Why 53-bytes for a cell? > > > Thanks > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell? (Laymans terms)
If you are asking for a reason, I may be able to break it down to a basic. One of the reasons ATM uses a fixed cell size (53-bytes) is to make it a little faster. Lets look at it through the OSI model. When data travels down through the OSI there may be various size differences in different technologies (ether, token, FDDI). This of coarse produces thinking on the OSI's part as it flows down the layers. We all know thinking takes up some time. Well, with ATM and the fixed size, the lower layers know what is gonna come out every time so they don't have to rethink their strategies every time a different packet is sent through because they always know how big it will be (53-bytes). The less the thinking, the faster it can pass the info onto the line. I know this is very weak but this is how I was taught it and I think it helps to explain in Layman's terms. Think of it like this. If UPS didn't have to weigh their packages every time they sent it out in the trucks, just imagine how much faster it would get on the road. Hope I helped...I think I just helped myself remember. ;) Mark Zabludovsky ~ CCNA, CCDA, 1/4-NP [EMAIL PROTECTED] "If you need luck, apparently you're not prepared...Go study!" ~Mark Zabludovsky~ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell?
Ask the French... >From: "Andy Xing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Andy Xing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Why 53-bytes for a cell? >Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:58:33 +0800 > >Thanks > > >_ >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell?
This is my understanding as well. This was a pure political decision that led to a pretty horrible technical result. The systems we work with like powers of 2. They woek ok with other composites. They DO NOT like primes. 53 is a prime number and this must cause no end of headaches to someone in the ATM ASIC building business. "McCallum, Robert" wrote: > It was a compromise. Data people wanted no less than 128bytes and Voice > people wanted no more than 32 bytes. SO a compromise was reached. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy Xing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 October 2000 08:59 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Why 53-bytes for a cell? > > Thanks > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell?
I read in one of the books I have used there were not an specific reason to define exactly a 53 Bytes cell in ATM, it was really an agreement between the two leaders developing ATM architecture (USA and Europe)where one defined a cell smaller than 50 bytes (sorry, but I do not remember the exact size suggested) and the other a cells greater than 60 bytes, so they decided to take the average to avoid problems and implement it. --- Nick Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >You must be refering to ATM. The reason it's 53 bytes in a cell > because > >the first 5 bytes are used for cell-header information; the other 48 > bytes > >contain the payload, which is data. > > I think his question was directed as to why those specific mechanics, > rather than the mechanics themselves. As in, why 53-bytes instead of > 92 > bytes..or 110 bytes...etc ;) > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Jose Luis De Abreu. EQUANT Integration Services - Venezuela Network Specialist. CCNP 2.0, CCDA 1.0, CSE __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell?
It is due to political reason. Politic again. One party want 64 byte for the payload. Another party want 32 byte for the payload. They can't settle so they choose the middle. (32+64)/2 = 48 byte. "Frank Kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ? [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > You must be refering to ATM. The reason it's 53 bytes in a cell because > the first 5 bytes are used for cell-header information; the other 48 bytes > contain the payload, which is data. > > > Cheers, > > Frank Kim, MCSE, CCNA > Comegetus Technologies > Phone: 858-831-0296 > Fax: 858-831-0687 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.comegetus.com > Cisco Training in San Diego > > > On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Andy Xing > wrote: > > > Thanks > > > > > > _ > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why 53-bytes for a cell?
Because when they said so thats why >;-('
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Andy Xing
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 2:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Why 53-bytes for a cell?
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> _
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell?
Because back when they were creating an ATM standard from stratch it had to be some number. I believe there were two factions (US vs. European) on what size the payload area should be. 48 bytes turned out to be the compromise between speed and size. --- Andy Xing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell?
>You must be refering to ATM. The reason it's 53 bytes in a cell because >the first 5 bytes are used for cell-header information; the other 48 bytes >contain the payload, which is data. I think his question was directed as to why those specific mechanics, rather than the mechanics themselves. As in, why 53-bytes instead of 92 bytes..or 110 bytes...etc ;) _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell? (Laymans terms)
In a message dated 10/20/00 4:54:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > You must be refering to ATM. The reason it's 53 bytes in a cell because > the first 5 bytes are used for cell-header information; the other 48 bytes > contain the payload, which is data. > > > Cheers, > If you are asking for a reason, I may be able to break it down to a basic. One of the reasons ATM uses a fixed cell size (53-bytes) is to make it a little faster. Lets look at it through the OSI model. When data travels down through the OSI there may be various size differences in different technologies (ether, token, FDDI). This of coarse produces thinking on the OSI's part as it flows down the layers. We all know thinking takes up some time. Well, with ATM and the fixed size, the lower layers know what is gonna come out every time so they don't have to rethink their strategies every time a different packet is sent through because they always know how big it will be (53-bytes). The less the thinking, the faster it can pass the info onto the line. I know this is very weak but this is how I was taught it and I think it helps to explain in Layman's terms. Think of it like this. If UPS didn't have to weigh their packages every time they sent it out in the trucks, just imagine how much faster it would get on the road. Hope I helped...I think I just helped myself remember. ;) Mark Zabludovsky ~ CCNA, CCDA, 1/4-NP [EMAIL PROTECTED] "If you need luck, apparently you're not prepared...Go study!" ~Mark Zabludovsky~ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 53-bytes for a cell?
You must be refering to ATM. The reason it's 53 bytes in a cell because the first 5 bytes are used for cell-header information; the other 48 bytes contain the payload, which is data. Cheers, Frank Kim, MCSE, CCNA Comegetus Technologies Phone: 858-831-0296 Fax: 858-831-0687 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.comegetus.com Cisco Training in San Diego On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Andy Xing wrote: > Thanks > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why 53-bytes for a cell?
It was a compromise. Data people wanted no less than 128bytes and Voice people wanted no more than 32 bytes. SO a compromise was reached. -Original Message- From: Andy Xing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 October 2000 08:59 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Why 53-bytes for a cell? Thanks _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
