nanog mailing list archives
Re: ATM vs. DS3
From: "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson () greendragon com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 97 16:48:54 GMT
From: Josh Beck <jbeck () connectnet com> Now, the question is, what is the overhead of the serial (ppp?) protocol running over the T3? Since it is point to point, and not addressed, it should be less, or is this not the case?
The framing overhead for PPP over DS3 is about 7 bytes per packet. You can make it as few as 4 (PPP header compression) or as long as 10 (32-bit checksum). I don't know anyone shipping PPP data compression yet at those speeds, although I've heard of a project using multiple Stac LZS chips. Anyway, you will get a lot better performance out of a PPP link than an ATM link; certainly in the short term, and probably in the long term. WSimpson () UMich edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson () MorningStar com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
Current thread:
- Re: ATM vs. DS3, (continued)
- Re: ATM vs. DS3 Ehud Gavron (Jul 09)
- RE: ATM vs. DS3 Chris A. Icide (Jul 09)
- Re: ATM vs. DS3 Karl Denninger (Jul 09)
- Re: ATM vs. DS3 Ben Black (Jul 10)
- Re: ATM vs. DS3 Stephen Balbach (Jul 10)
- Re: ATM vs. DS3 Peter Kline (Jul 10)
- Re: ATM vs. DS3 Eric D. Madison (Jul 10)
- Re: ATM vs. DS3 Karl Denninger (Jul 09)
- Re: ATM vs. DS3 Alex.Bligh (Jul 11)
- Re: ATM vs. DS3 Dorian R. Kim (Jul 11)
- RE: ATM vs. DS3 Stephen Balbach (Jul 10)
- RE: ATM vs. DS3 Eric D. Madison (Jul 10)