Subject: Re: Exchanges that matter... Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:02:24 -0800 From: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com> [...] ... 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... -tjs From: salo@msc.edu (Tim Salo) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 14:50:11 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 14:28:27 -0400 From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com> [...] 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.