Cell Relay Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Re: CR: Re: Why atm use 53 byte?
Hi all. At 23:03 05/02/1999 PDT, Jerry Mendes wrote: >Too bad no one from Bell Labs responded to this question. My recollection >dates from the late 80s, shortly after the ATM cell length had been agreed >upon through international standards group -- I'm not sure whether it was >through ISO or CCITT (predecessor of the current ITU-T). U.S. proposals >wanted 32 octet cell length, to optimize ATM performance for voice >networks (hence, Bell Labs interest). European proposals, driven by >greater efficiency for data transmission, were written with 64 octet cell >lengths. I think that this is backwards. The U.S. and other countries employing T1 technology wanted 64 byte payloads which incurs an 8 ms delay to acquire all of the voice samples using PCM. The Europeans and other countries wanted 32B payloads (4 ms delay). >In fact, the 48 octet length was an arbitrary compromise between the two >as suggested by an earlier poster. I'd suggest having a look at IEEE >Communications or IEEE Network magazines from 1987 to 1989 time frame if >you want to see the discussions. I agree! /kessler ================================================================= Gary Kessler +1 802-655-0940 (main office) Hill Associates +1 802-655-8659 (direct line) 17 Roosevelt Highway +1 802-655-7974 (fax) Colchester, VT 05446 kumquat@hill.com http://www.hill.com http://www.sover.net/~kessfam/gck PGP Public Key: http://www.hill.com/PGP/gck_pubkey.html
|
|