nanog mailing list archives
Re: MCI [ATM overhead]
From: bajaj () bellcore com (Shikhar Bajaj)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 10:50:13 -0500
One could remove the ATM overhead, but then one has a point-to-point link, rather than a link over which data from many sources can be multiplexed.Rather, that leaves us with the excellent (very desirable) option of a link where data from many sources are multiplexed by TCP/IP.... I do not see what ATM buys in this situation.
Like any technology, ATM will not be all things to all people. If all you are looking for is a "big, fat pipe" below IP, you will look at all your available options in addition to ATM. (You will be looking at all options regardless). In the end, you will choose whatever makes sense technologically AND ECONOMICALLY. Shikhar
Current thread:
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead], (continued)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] John Cavanaugh (Mar 20)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Wolfgang Henke (Mar 20)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Paul Ferguson (Mar 20)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Mark A. Luker (CISE/NCRI) (Mar 22)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Vadim Antonov (Mar 20)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Shikhar Bajaj (Mar 20)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Tim Salo (Mar 20)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Jon Zeeff (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] William Allen Simpson (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Shikhar Bajaj (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Shikhar Bajaj (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Tim Salo (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Jeff Ogden (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Wolfgang Henke (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Vadim Antonov (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Kent W. England (Mar 22)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Tim Salo (Mar 25)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Tim Salo (Mar 25)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Vadim Antonov (Mar 25)