salo@msc.edu (Tim Salo) wrote:
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...
FDDI is not a WAN technology. Losing 20% of bandwidth of a 10 ft piece of fiber is one thing. Losing 20% of bandwidth of a $3M/yr circuit is quite different. ATM as a LAN is probably ok, if it can compete with Gb Ethernet price/performance-wise. --vadim
I am surprised, (well, maybe not), that you aren't concerned about the excessive overhead present in FDDI networks...
FDDI is not a WAN technology. Losing 20% of bandwidth of a 10 ft piece of fiber is one thing. Losing 20% of bandwidth of a $3M/yr circuit is quite different.
ATM as a LAN is probably ok, if it can compete with Gb Ethernet price/performance-wise.
In the smaller networks, GigabitE may well turn out cheaper than ATM, but Ethernet will never have the design flexibility ATM does. ...and any technology which experiences performance problems at 40% utilization will is questionable at best...
participants (2)
-
Joe Rhett -
Vadim Antonov