[10434] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Another UUNET Explanation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Rubenstein)
Tue Jul 1 22:37:55 1997
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 22:33:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net>
To: Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net>
cc: joe@via.net (Joe McGuckin), nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199707020000.RAA15420@elite.exodus.net>
This is not exactly true. Frame Relay -- if designed properly, and with
good frame switches -- can be - IMHO - 10's of times better.
Frame Relay allows yout he ability to psuedo-directly connection various
pop's together, and gives that clean appearance of a 'no-hop' back bone.
Why route when you can switch?
On Tue, 1 Jul 1997, Robert Bowman wrote:
> layer 2 vs. layer 3
>
> tis like comparing a motorcyle to an automobile--both get you places
> but in fairly different ways
>
> rob
> >
> > I've noticed that several of the larger networks use frame-relay.
> >
> > Why? Our experience with frame-relay with the local telco has had
> > mixed results.
> >
> > What technical advantages does a frame-relay network have over an
> > IP routed network?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Joe
> >
>
>
