[10436] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Another UUNET Explanation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Bowman)
Tue Jul 1 23:00:48 1997
From: Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net>
To: alex@nac.net (Alex Rubenstein)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 19:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: joe@via.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.96.970701223125.296D-100000@duncan.nac.net> from "Alex Rubenstein" at Jul 1, 97 10:33:07 pm
On the inverse, routers--if designed properly, can be 10 times better
because of lower overhead, cost effectiveness, etc. I don't think this
is going to be a debate that one will win in this forum. There are
many router only based backbones, such as ours, Digex, etc. Then there
are the many on the fr/router side.. just as "effective" one might
say..
rob
>
>
>
> 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
