home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!news
- From: myoung@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
- Subject: Re: fat cells (was Re: Computers dont like ATM?)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov20.150333.17701@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>
- Date: 20 Nov 92 15:03:33 GMT
- References: <sjdveq8@sgi.sgi.com>,<1992Nov20.122227.6002@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
- Sender: news@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (News)
- Reply-To: myoung@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
- Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
- Lines: 15
-
- In article <1992Nov20.122227.6002@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, mdh@cl.cam.ac.uk
- > (Mark Hayter) writes:
- >
- >We have been using a system similar to this to allow interworking between
- >our ATM networks and the Ethernet for several years. The ethernet packet
- >contains the headers for all of the cells followed by the data - thus the data
- >is contiguous at the host. This system works well, and the router forwarding
- >code is efficient (since it is basically just doing cell forwarding).
- > Data going from ATM->ethernet can be formed quickly into "fat cells",
- >being transmitted when a full ethernet packet has been formed or the AAL-5
- >"end-of-frame" indication is seen.
-
- OK, this seems to be the right tack for ethernet-ATM transfer. I vote
- to continue this thread, possibly leading to some standard mapping
- between ethernet and cell relay.
-