3 ms·
NAT vs P2P is small fry. What really bothers me is the death of ATM at the hands of IP. A protocol which had a much better design, addressing present future and
by dxbydt 14y ago
NAT vs P2P is small fry. What really bothers me is the death of ATM at the hands of IP. A protocol which had a much better design, addressing present future and futuristic use cases dies at the hand of a protocol that had the marketing musclepower of cisco.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- mcguire 14y agoI just wanted to mention a couple of things: * 48-byte cells. * ATM had the marketing muscle of the entire Telco industry. As the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asynchronous_Transfer_Mode http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asynchronous_Transfer_Mode) (which sounds somewhat like it was written by the ATM Forum) says, "ATM became popular with telephone companies and many computer makers in the 1990s. However, even by the end of the decade, the better price/performance of Internet Protocol-based products was competing with ATM technology for integrating real-time and bursty network traffic."