Comments

Wed Aug 31 23:50:46 UTC 1994

In message <199408312318.QAA08553 at cincsac.arc.nasa.gov>, "Milo S. Medin" writes:

| The issue behind the NAP's is that they could have been engineered to
| use simpler and more mature interconnect technology at the start

Agreed.  

| [...] deal with the consequences now rather than waiting until things
| have calmed down later and less pain will be required on our part, and that
| we would have better multivendor support.

Also agreed, especially wrt the priority NAPs.   Admittedly, though,
NSF likes to test out new technology, and while their stated goal is to
ensure full connectivity between their clients and everyone else, I
imagine that they don't mind a bit of unproven technology being used to
accomplish that goal.

| And I will point to the fact that ATM isn't being used in the other
| interconnects like the CIX, the FIXes, SWAB, MAE-East, etc... So I will
| disagree that ATM is required for this sort of thing.

I agree with you that ATM is not needed, however, fast packet is fast
packet is fast packet, whether you layer something on top of it or
not.  SMDS is being used at the SWAB and will be offered as an access
method into the CIX.  MAE-EAST and the D.C. NAP (currently)  do
ethernet (and FDDI) layered on top of ATM.

I am not a fast-packet fan, and some of my colleagues (at Sprint and
elsewhere) agree with me.  Others like fast-packet/cell-relay, but
agree that it has some maturing to do before it's relied upon for
anything critical, especially when it comes to touching down with other NSPs.

We tend to prefer stabler, simpler technologies, and that's reflected
(among other places) in the MAE-EAST+ development in the Gallows Road
MFS colocate space which we will use instead of SWAB or the D.C.  NAP,
our desire to use the two FIXes as primary peering points, and also in
design of the Pennsauken NAP.

	Sean.
- --
Sean Doran <smd at sprint.net>   SprintLink Engineering   +1 800 669 8303