NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/dcom/cellrel/249

Text File | 1992-07-25 | 1.2 KB | 28 lines

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!sics.se!craig
From: [e-mail] (Craig Partridge)
Subject: > Cell SIze
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 02:34:47 GMT
Lines: 18

|> >Note that if you were trying to compromise on these various tradeoffs,
|> >you'd probably pick a size that balance interrupt costs and bandwidth.
|> >My guess (based on what I've seen of predicted processor performance
|> >and estimated packet sizes) is that you'd choose a size of about 1,000
|> >bits (c. 128 bytes), which was one of the original proposals to CCITT.
|>
|> Yes, but...but.... This analysis considers data traffic only! Remember
|> that ATM will be expected to provide other services as well. With a cell
|> payload of 128 bytes echo cancellation will be even more difficult than
|> with 64 bytes.

I was not focussing on data traffic.  I was focussing on the future,
and transmission speeds in 100s of Mbits (yes to the home -- we can run
100 Mbit/sec over twisted pair...).  At that point, small cells are
silly and serialization times are not a problem.

Craig Partridge
[e-mail]