Neil J. McRae wrote: > The GRF-400 used to support HIPPI tunelling over ATM. You're right - but this makes the HiPPI interface unusable for IP-Routing. So it is in our case not the most desirable option (although we think about it) Anyway, do you have experiences with HiPPI-over-ATM-Tunneling on the GRF? I would be very interested. There is a paper from the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Supercomputer Center that compares HiPPI-ATMOC3-Tunneling and HiPPI-IP-Routing on the GigaRouter. They conclude that in both cases maximum end-to-end HiPPI speed is about 13 MB/s I think. A colleage of me mentioned that the longer connection-setup time of HiPPI over an ATM tunnel could turn out to be a problem when it comes to higher bandwidths e.g. an HiPPI over ATMOC12 tunnel. Tassilo -- Tassilo Erlewein Computing Center University of Stuttgart Communication Systems & BelWue Development Allmandring 30, D-70550 Stuttgart tel ++49 711 685 5871 fax ++49 711 678 7626 e-mail: erlewein@rus.uni-stuttgart.de ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++ To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com To get FAQ'd: <<A HREF="http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq">http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq</A>> </PRE> <!--X-MsgBody-End--> <!--X-Follow-Ups--> <!--X-Follow-Ups-End--> <!--X-References--> <!--X-References-End--> <!--X-BotPNI--> <HR> <UL> <LI>Prev by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg11944.html">Re: (ASCEND) ATM MTU 64 KB ?</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg11929.html">Re: (ASCEND) ATM MTU 64 KB ?</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Prev by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg11954.html">Re: (ASCEND) ATM MTU 64 KB ?</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg11936.html">(ASCEND) Firmware version V1.160T</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Index(es): <UL> <LI><A HREF="mail2.html#11933"><STRONG>Main</STRONG></A></LI> <LI><A HREF="thrd287.html#11933"><STRONG>Thread</STRONG></A></LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> <!--X-BotPNI-End--> <!--X-User-Footer--> <!--X-User-Footer-End--> </BODY> </HTML>