[1484] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: value of co-location
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fletcher Kittredge)
Mon Jan 22 07:59:41 1996
To: hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu (Hans-Werner Braun)
cc: dennis@ipsilon.com (Dennis Ferguson), nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: fkittred@biddeford.com (Fletcher Kittredge)
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 21 Jan 1996 15:28:43 PST."
<199601212328.PAA00907@upeksa.sdsc.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 07:49:13 -0500
From: Fletcher Kittredge <fkittred@biddeford.com>
On Sun, 21 Jan 1996 15:28:43 -0800 (PST) Hans-Werner Braun wrote:
> This all is probably true if the objective is to provide the best
> possible IP service. If you apply other requirements, like integration
> of the current telephony system, or, more accurately, evolve the
> telephony system, in the telephony company mindset, to something that
> also supports data, video, and things like that, things look
> different. Then again, so far I see little activity in the context of
> service integration. More ATM as a level-2 replacement for data
> networking. Which brings us back to your comments, as in such an
> environment the benefit is more marginal (e.g., ATM may still have
> multiple service qualities before it is being implemented in an IP(+)
> substrate). Oh well. If there were just concerted goals.
Telephony system, Telephony system... Oh yeah, I remember! That was
that system they had back in the twentieth century for carrying
primitive voice communications. I even think they used to run data
across it in the days before the cable companies dominated.
later,
fletcher
