From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri May 26 12:33:44 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id MAA05106 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 1995 12:33:44 -0700 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id MAA05099 ; Fri, 26 May 1995 12:33:42 -0700 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA27641; Fri, 26 May 95 13:26:03 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9505261926.AA27641@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: Drivers for FORE systems cards under FreeBSD To: phk@ref.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp) Date: Fri, 26 May 95 13:26:03 MDT Cc: imb@scgt.oz.au, hasty@netcom.com, julian@ref.tfs.com, pss@fore.com, announce@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org, rv@fore.com In-Reply-To: <199505261606.JAA01495@ref.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at May 26, 95 09:06:05 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Much as I hate generalisations .. I would warn that ATM and IP apparently do > > not mix well in cases where good interactive response is critical, at least > > in my limited experience. I get better response over my own overworked 14k4 > > modem connection to the net than over a (university based) 2 megabit ATM > > link. > > This is not a general problem with ATM, and I tend to say that it's > because there are other users on the 2Mb ATM than you. > > It's certainly not an argument against ATM... Poul's right. It's an argument against bandwidth overcommit. Which is an argument against non-virtual circuit transports for virtual circuit traffic. THAT's the argument against ATM. On the other hand, ATM and Frame Relay source quench doesn't really work well with TCP/IP, since TCP/IP doesn't recognize it as a valid congestion control mechanism. Arguably, the problem is in TCP/IP. Except it came first. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.