Cell Relay Archive

[albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com]

In article <7k8lau$q9r$1@panix2.panix.com>,
  shore@panix.com (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> In article <7k8h97$ns3$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>  <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:
> >Cells in frames was a concept championed by Cornell University, among
> >others. What it was (maybe still is?) was a way of using Ethernet to
> >carry ATM cells, only for the purpose of testing ATM while using
cheap
> >Ethernet hardware.
>
> Close.  We were doing it to carry voice.

Huh??

At the time, Scott Brim described cells in frames as I stated above. If
you intended it to carry voice, I'm truly at a loss. Isn't it
infinitely easier to carry voice over Ethernet using something much
more standard, like UDP/IP?

Since filling up an Ethernet frame with ATM cells offers no QoS
advantages above what a stream of large Ethernet frames would provide
(i.e. basically no QoS guarantees at all), it would seem to me that if
your motive was to carry voice, using small UDP/IP packets (e.g. 200
bytes max) would be a far better choice (assuming you're going across
routers)?

Perhaps what you mean is that you carried voice in the ATM cells in
order to conduct your tests? The ultimate goal being the tests, over a
lightly loaded Ethernet to emulate an ATM medium, rather than the goal
being "to carry voice over Ethernet"?

--
Bert
manfredi@arl.bna.boeing.com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.