From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Dec 28 11:55:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA10731 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:55:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from kjsl.com (Limpia.KJSL.COM [198.137.202.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA10713 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:55:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from javier@kjsl.com) Received: (from javier@localhost) by kjsl.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA26758; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:55:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:55:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812281955.LAA26758@kjsl.com> From: Javier Henderson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dennis Cc: Alan Batie , isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ATM WAN interface In-Reply-To: <199812281449.OAA07799@etinc.com> References: <19981228095606.50083@rdrop.com> <199812281449.OAA07799@etinc.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.1 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dennis writes: > Note that ATM has a LOT of overhead (like 30%). so ATM over a DS3 > is not nearly the bandwidth of using straight HSSI or PTP. ATM is meant > as a medium that can be switched at high speed, but as a PTP mechanism > it is very poor. I've often wondered how well IP would do, throughput-wise, over ATM with its 53 byte cells. "Packet fragmentation overhead" comes to mind. I've never seen actual performance figures, however. -jav To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message