Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Which is more efficient?
From: Joe Abley <jabley () hopcount ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:07:03 -0500


On 2009-01-14, at 15:56, Murphy, Jay, DOH wrote:

In your humble opinion, which transmission method is more efficient, packet or cell?

When you say "transmission method" are you just interested in packet/ cell forwarding, or are you also including the effort involved in segmentation and reassembly?

And when you say "efficient" are you talking about power consumption, or cost per bit, or payload versus header, or minimising jitter for isochronous applications, or something else?

If the question is a pragmatic one (e.g. "which will allow me to get the most sleep, and spend the least money") then perhaps at low speeds, with Nortel's bankruptcy imminent, you could expect to find a lot of cheap ATM gear on the used market that would be the right short- term answer. It'd have to be pretty cheap though. I have met clueful people who have come to this conclusion, astonishing though it seemed to me at the time.

At higher speeds, you might find that ATM gear either doesn't exist, or is so ludicrously expensive compared to ethernet switches that it makes you laugh coffee all over your keyboard.


Joe


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]