Version 1.0, 4/10/02
The result is that ATM is significantly more efficient that Ethernet in terms of Mbps for carrying very small PDUs. Every Mbps of
176 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 | 120 | 140 |
|
|
| IP P a c ke t Le ngth [Byte s] |
|
|
| |
Ethernet Frame Bytes 
AAL5 PDU Length
Figure 2 – Frame and PDU Length versus IP Packet Length
1000
900
800
700
600
500 |
400
300
200
100
0
0 | 100 | 200 | 300 | 400 | 500 | 600 | 700 | 800 | 900 | 1000 | 1100 | 1200 | 1300 | 1400 | 1500 |
IP P a c ke t Le ngth [Byte s]
OC- 12 Input 
OC- 3 Input
Figure 3 – Expected Ethernet Transmit Bandwidth
Page 5 of 17
