What frame relay switch is causing MCI/Worldcom such grief?
mjc at cooper.org.uk
Wed Aug 11 14:35:52 UTC 1999
Joel Halpern <joel at mcquillan.com> wrote:
> Martin Cooper said something similar to:
> > But the reason ISPs adopted NBMA L2 networks in the first place is
> > because the telcos convinced them that L2/L3 integration was going
> > to happen.
> Actually, that turns out not to be the case. The adoption of layer 2
> switching technology into the internet core set of tools predates any of
> the ATM hype. It was done with frame relay.
Oh absolutely - I wasn't just referring to ATM in the context of NBMA
> It was not done on the
> basis of L2/L3 integration, but because it gave the ISPs something more
> useful than just a fixed size (DS3) set of pipes between places.
Well ok, but if you follow that marketing pitch (making nailed up
L2 links more useful to extremely popular overlayed L3 networks
like the Internet) to its logical conclusion, it ends up there,
because the motivation behind it is to be seen to add value to
the product (shifting unspecified data from A to B) to stave off
More information about the NANOG