From owner-freebsd-isp  Thu Feb 13 10:50:59 1997
Return-Path: <owner-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA00695
          for isp-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA00676
          for <isp@freebsd.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ntws (ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA12248; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:54:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970213135001.00cb7e20@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:50:03 -0500
To: Robin Melville <robmel@nadt.org.uk>
From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Subject: Re: ATM Frame Relay vs P2P?
Cc: isp@freebsd.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

At 02:24 PM 2/13/97 GMT, you 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? 
>
>Any contributions greatly received.

Are you talking about ATM or Frame Relay or both?

You dont want ATM on a relatively slow WAN link...theres way too much
overhead (small packets.....)...Some frame relay nets use ATM as their
backbone (on high speed T3 links)...

Frame is advantageous when it saves you hops....ie a hop through 
a frame switch is faster than a hop through a router. Since frame
is less distance-sensitive, you can get closer to "the net" with frame,
often in 1 hop rather than through a busy POP somewhere.

Dennis