[15073] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FDDI or 100Mb Ethernet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Fri Feb 6 14:46:50 1998
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 14:35:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Deepak Jain <deepak@jain.com>
To: Lewis Eatherton <eathertl@segasoft.com>
cc: Charles Sprickman <spork@inch.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980205171104.00823600@pop3.segasoft.com>
FDDI can run full duplex, as for the other two things its a matter of
opinion & conditions. (One I agree with, but still opinion).
-Deepak.
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Lewis Eatherton wrote:
> FDDI would be my last choice. 100MB ethernet can be run full duplex, is
> less expensive, and far easier to troubleshoot.
>
> At 07:42 PM 2/5/98 -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >We colocate with our upstream, so we (thankfully) don't have to deal with
> >Bell Atlantic for our main Internet connection. We are currently running
> >a 10Mb ethernet link to our provider, but our contract allows for more
> >than that should we ever need it. Since the Bay ASN we now use will soon
> >be history and will be replaced by a shiny new(?) Cisco, I'm thinking of
> >upgrading the link now rather than later.
> >
> >We have a choice of FDDI or 100Mb ethernet. I'm thinking FDDI is better,
> >and not too much more expensive for our side. Are there any negatives
> >with FDDI? How does the 4000(?) Byte MTU affect things? All of our
> >outgoing links, T1 and ether are all 1500. Does the work of fragmenting
> >the packets down to 1500 amount to anything? All this talk about MTUs has
> >got me wondering.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Charles
> >
> >~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
> >Charles Sprickman Internet Channel
> >INCH System Administration Team (212)243-5200
> >spork@inch.com access@inch.com
> >
> >
> >
> Lewis Eatherton
> Network Architect
> SegaSoft, Inc
> 650.654.2318
>
