RE: Q:Why router with ATM interface comes out earlier than pure SONET interface?

["Christian Kuhtz" <ck () bellsouth net>]

> |     Okay, so given all the great features that ATM is supposed to have
> |  and the only thing that really sucks about it is the overhead
> due to the 53
> |  byte cell size, the obvious question is why can't there be an
> ATM standard
> |  with, say, 197 ( 4 times the current 48 byte payload) or even 389 ( 8
> |  times 48 ) byte cells?
> |     Is there something magic about 53 or is the IP over ATM application
> |  still so 'obscure' that there is no interest?
>
>
> Increasing the cell size lowers the efficiency further.
>
> 53 is an ATM architectural constant.  Change it, and it's no longer ATM.
> Change it, and you're no longer interoperable.
>
> Tony


Why not just make ATM variable cell size altogether?

Tongue planted firmly in cheek,
Chris

PS: Actually, overhead is not "the only thing that really sucks".  Being
connection-oriented at the transport layer is another.

--
Christian Kuhtz, BellSouth Corp., Sr. Network Architect  <ck () bellsouth net>
1100 Ashwood Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30338                        <ck () gnu org>
"Turnaucka's Law: The attention span of a computer is only as long as its
 electrical cord."                                    -- /usr/games/fortune