VoIPv6

[Greg Maxwell]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Matt Crawford wrote:

> > ATM overhead: 10.4%
> > IPv6 overhead: 26.6%
> 
> Completely irrelevant, since ATM doesn't go (hardly) anywhere.  If
> you're going to bury your own infrastructure, you might as well
> install a PBX at each site and do away with ATM as well.

I'm certantly not a fan of ATM, I'm just running the numbers. I stated a
simple fact: Many VoIP people are unhappy with header overhead. Someone
then countered that ATM was worse, and I simply pointed out that ATM is
not worse for this sort of application (low bandwidth, low latency).