[14911] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MAE-Central
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Siegel)
Tue Feb 3 12:11:14 1998
From: Dave Siegel <dave@rtd.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980203110158.22679B-100000@robotics.net> from Nathan Stratton at "Feb 3, 98 11:06:28 am"
To: nathan@robotics.net (Nathan Stratton)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:19:10 -0700 (MST)
Cc: kwe@geo.net, phil@charon.milepost.com, nanog@merit.edu
> > Sorry, but I can't find a Worldcom press release anywhere. I don't feel
> > right cutting and pasting the entire article, but the location is slated to
> > be Dallas.
> >
> > (BTW, isn't it scandalous that MFS would copy the PacBell NAP and build a
> > MAE using S'com BPX switches? I went back and checked the nanog archives
> > and compiled a list of all the ISPs that swore they would never connect to
> > an ATM NAP. How many are planning to disconnect from the MAEs when the ATM
> > switches come up?)
>
> Yes and no. Sure a lot of people that said they would not connect to a ATM
> NAP, but things do change. The current FDDI NAPs are just not able to
> support the current load and their is no good way to expand them. ATM has
> changed a lot in the last 4 years. ATM switched have come a long way, sure
> they are still not where I would like to see them, but they are getting
> there. I don't think it matters anyone, the whole public NAP idea (I
> think was a good idea) is dead.
I don't think the point is really worth arguing. It's not the fact that
they chose a particular technology.
I think it was particularly nice that they asked their potential
customers what they should deploy.
Who knows...maybe the did ask, but I don't think they asked the right
people.
Dave (who's waiting to see a NAP built with a GSR (or similar) )
--
Dave Siegel dave@rtd.net
Network Engineer dave@pager.rtd.com (alpha pager)
(520)579-0450 (home office)
http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/
