Subject: Re: IEEE802.1 Looking for Guidance - Cells in Frames

From: "William Allen Simpson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 94 01:52:26 GMT

> From: [email-masked] (Richard Cogger)
> Why not run ATM cells in Ethernet frames?
>
> Solutions being offered or proposed by various vendors promise 25Mbps or
> 51Mbps or more, but the most optimistic pricing I've heard, projecting for
> a year or two in the future is about $3-400/port on a mux plus $2-300 for
> the workstation adapter.
> ...
> So, my proposal to prospective vendors is: build a 24-port mux (10BASE-T
> ports) with a 155Mbps ATM port to connect via fiber to a switch. Price it
> so that the volume discounted cost for us is $100/port, and we will buy
> approximately 10,000 ports.  I think there are probably many campuses with
> similar needs.
> ...
> This proposal is an alternative to ethernet frame switching, which seems
> costly, and to several other forms of "preserving investment in the
> installed base."

I don't understand.  Why is ethernet frame switching considered expensive,
when the discounted price is already under $200/port and expected to
be under $100 "a year or two in the future"?

Why would you provide higher bandwidth to every workstation, like these
reading their email?

Why do you think a switch with one 155Mbps ATM port will be cheaper than
a switch with one 100Mbps Ethernet port?  Particularly with lower volume.

> In effect, being able to show folks the
> benefits of ATM to the desktop may help to sell them on the need for
> greater speed.
>
What benefits of ATM?  Compared to IP over Ethernet?

[email-masked]