nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP over ATM overhead
From: Darren Kerr <dkerr () cisco com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 12:04:16 -0800
We are installing an ATM backbone connection and wondering what level of overhead can be expected. Ive read from %10 to %50 - this will be a LAN connection so we can assume almost no cell loss. Our provider has said on average %12 bandwidth is overhead. It will be a Cisco->Cisco LAN configuration. Thanks! Stephen Balbach VP ClarkNet
It probably depends on what you define as overhead. You might define it as that 16 bytes of AAL5/SNAP header & trailer per IP datagram, plus 5 bytes per cell, plus whatever trailing bytes are wasted in the last cell. Compare this with packet over sonet (1 byte of IFG, 4 bytes of ppp encapsulation, and 4 bytes of CRC). Peter Lothberg gathered some packet size distributions at various internet routers in January, and found that using the above definitions, atm overhead consumed 22% of bandwidth, vs. 3.1% for POS overhead. Looking at it another way, POS can move 24% more payload than ATM using the same packet size distribution. I've taken other snapshots at other routers since then, and the results come very close. /Darren - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- IP over ATM overhead Stephen Balbach (Mar 13)
- Re: IP over ATM overhead Eric D. Madison (Mar 13)
- Re: IP over ATM overhead John Cavanaugh (Mar 13)
- Re: IP over ATM overhead Darren Kerr (Mar 13)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: IP over ATM overhead pkavi (Mar 13)