From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Feb 13 10:26:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA29047 for isp-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net (jdd@avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net [194.207.2.20]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA29039 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jdd@localhost) by avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net (8.8.2/8.7.3) id SAA00840; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 18:26:27 GMT Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 18:26:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Jim Dixon X-Sender: jdd@avon-gw.uk1.vbc.net To: Robin Melville cc: isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ATM Frame Relay vs P2P? In-Reply-To: <199702131424.OAA00343@charlie.nadt.org.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Robin Melville wrote: > Does anyone have any thoughts/experience of the benefits or otherwise of > hooking to backbone via ATM Frame Relay as opposed to Point to Point? If you mean IP-over-frame-over-ATM is offered by MFS, for example, the overheads involved are small and the service is for all practical purposes point-to-point. We can only comment upon MFS's service in detail by private mail ;-) Some carriers drop packets mercilessly; this can seriously disrupt TCP/IP traffic. You get your bandwidth, but if you lose a single ATM cell a frame relay packet is lost, and if you lose an IP packet you lose bandwidth because of TCP retransmissions. It's not the protocol that's the problem, it's the carrier that needs checking out. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015