5 ms·

yeah. 53 bytes was the total packet size, not the payload size. But oh hey! lets pick a large prime number for the number of bytes that a payload could be trans

yeah. 53 bytes was the total packet size, not the payload size. But oh hey! lets pick a large prime number for the number of bytes that a payload could be transmitted in. Lets also pick a small prime number of bytes so we can't do byte boundaries. Needless to say, I am glad that TCP/IP won. Moving on.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
First, ATM is OSI Layer 2, where PDUs are not called "packets", they are called "frames". ATM calls these frames "cells", so a cell is 53 octets (which literally means 8 bits, because guess what, not all bytes are that size.) ATM also covers Layer 1 (where PDUs are called "bits" or "symbols") and Layer 3 (where IP starts). Second, TCP/IP is Layer 3 and up, which means it runs on ATM just fine, like it runs on ISDN, Ethernet, Token Ring, PPP, and the various ITU standards for modems. ATM is commonly used in DSL implementations, so it also "won" as far as DSL has penetrated as a broadband technology.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kstrauser 3y ago
  At least some telco types absolutely wanted to use ATM for everything. The idea was that instead of the completely anarchy of letting anyone connect to anyone else, you'd use ATM to build up sane, billable virtual circuits between endpoints. Basically, your computer would "call" a server, and Ma Bell would helpfully bill you for the connection and for the amount of data you passed. When you were done, you'd disconnect. I mean, it'd worked for years for voice, so why not data? Fortunately, that insanity lost.
  - djbusby 3y ago
    Um. Is joke? Loads of cloud provider have billing related to the amount of data shipped. Freaking Route53 bills almost per query.
    - kstrauser 3y ago
      No. They wanted to bill per connection. You know how you use to be charged to call another phone? The telcos wanted that connection-level billing for data.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    > Fortunately, that insanity lost. It lost to ad-supported websites, affiliate links, third-party cookies, tracking and fingerprinting? Also, ATM was an integral part of SONET/SDH PSTN backbones for decades, so unbeknownst to the consumer, we were using ATM "for everything".
    - kstrauser 3y ago
      There was talk (I was in the room) of using it, or a successor, as the transport of the Internet. Imagine replacing IP with ATM, and paying a telco every time you created a virtual circuit for the things we use TCP for today. That was the grand vision. See https://www.wired.com/1996/10/atm-3/ https://www.wired.com/1996/10/atm-3/ for the debate at the time.
      - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        What you're implying is that transport providers would've charged more than the market can bear, as compared to the flat-fee typical of ISPs in these United States. It's interesting to note that in other parts of the world, such as the ones which used ISDN, Internet usage has been metered, albeit not per-server-connection. You're also implying that there's something special about the technical design and implementation of ATM that enables monetization based on per-connection events. Well, let me introduce you to TCP, which sets up virtual connections... circuits... at the transport/session layer. There is no technical reason that ISPs (many also happen to be telcos) couldn't charge on a per-TCP-session level in the same way as ATM's SVCs weren't used. What I'm saying is that the consumers have been monetized anyway, via data mining, engagement, and tracking, and while it's not cash coming out of our pockets, it's still us trading something of value for access to those resources. In fact, the consumer has resources so valuable, that there are whole classes of malware like coinminers, who literally capitalize on them, and there are parallel benign apps which do the same, only with consent. Perhaps if the telcos had been willing to charge per-VC, our attention and PII would still be monetized, and they'd get us coming and going. Perhaps it's a false dichotomy. I don't know.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

First, ATM is OSI Layer 2, where PDUs are not called "packets", they are called "frames". ATM calls these frames "cells", so a cell is 53 octets (which literally means 8 bits, because guess what, not all bytes are that size.) ATM also covers Layer 1 (where PDUs are called "bits" or "symbols") and Layer 3 (where IP starts). Second, TCP/IP is Layer 3 and up, which means it runs on ATM just fine, like it runs on ISDN, Ethernet, Token Ring, PPP, and the various ITU standards for modems. ATM is commonly used in DSL implementations, so it also "won" as far as DSL has penetrated as a broadband technology.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kstrauser 3y ago
At least some telco types absolutely wanted to use ATM for everything. The idea was that instead of the completely anarchy of letting anyone connect to anyone else, you'd use ATM to build up sane, billable virtual circuits between endpoints. Basically, your computer would "call" a server, and Ma Bell would helpfully bill you for the connection and for the amount of data you passed. When you were done, you'd disconnect. I mean, it'd worked for years for voice, so why not data? Fortunately, that insanity lost.
- djbusby 3y ago
  Um. Is joke? Loads of cloud provider have billing related to the amount of data shipped. Freaking Route53 bills almost per query.
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    No. They wanted to bill per connection. You know how you use to be charged to call another phone? The telcos wanted that connection-level billing for data.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  > Fortunately, that insanity lost. It lost to ad-supported websites, affiliate links, third-party cookies, tracking and fingerprinting? Also, ATM was an integral part of SONET/SDH PSTN backbones for decades, so unbeknownst to the consumer, we were using ATM "for everything".
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    There was talk (I was in the room) of using it, or a successor, as the transport of the Internet. Imagine replacing IP with ATM, and paying a telco every time you created a virtual circuit for the things we use TCP for today. That was the grand vision. See https://www.wired.com/1996/10/atm-3/ https://www.wired.com/1996/10/atm-3/ for the debate at the time.
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      What you're implying is that transport providers would've charged more than the market can bear, as compared to the flat-fee typical of ISPs in these United States. It's interesting to note that in other parts of the world, such as the ones which used ISDN, Internet usage has been metered, albeit not per-server-connection. You're also implying that there's something special about the technical design and implementation of ATM that enables monetization based on per-connection events. Well, let me introduce you to TCP, which sets up virtual connections... circuits... at the transport/session layer. There is no technical reason that ISPs (many also happen to be telcos) couldn't charge on a per-TCP-session level in the same way as ATM's SVCs weren't used. What I'm saying is that the consumers have been monetized anyway, via data mining, engagement, and tracking, and while it's not cash coming out of our pockets, it's still us trading something of value for access to those resources. In fact, the consumer has resources so valuable, that there are whole classes of malware like coinminers, who literally capitalize on them, and there are parallel benign apps which do the same, only with consent. Perhaps if the telcos had been willing to charge per-VC, our attention and PII would still be monetized, and they'd get us coming and going. Perhaps it's a false dichotomy. I don't know.