| 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?
Increasing the cell size lowers the efficiency further.
53 is an ATM architectural constant. Change it, and it's no longer ATM. Change it, and you're no longer interoperable.
Tony
Why not just make ATM variable cell size altogether? Tongue planted firmly in cheek, Chris PS: Actually, overhead is not "the only thing that really sucks". Being connection-oriented at the transport layer is another. -- Christian Kuhtz, BellSouth Corp., Sr. Network Architect <ck@bellsouth.net> 1100 Ashwood Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30338 <ck@gnu.org> "Turnaucka's Law: The attention span of a computer is only as long as its electrical cord." -- /usr/games/fortune