[2257] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST))
Fri Mar 29 19:59:23 1996
From: Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST) <nanog@dune.silkroad.com>
To: avg@postman.ncube.com (Vadim Antonov)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 19:22:19 -0500 (EST)
Cc: avg@postman.ncube.com, bajaj@bellcore.com, nanog@merit.edu,
pferguso@cisco.com, smd@icp.net
In-Reply-To: <9603300003.AA16929@butler.ncube.com> from "Vadim Antonov" at Mar 29, 96 04:03:54 pm
Vadim,
I think we are accidently cross-wired.....
I agree 100 percent that real-time data cannot be guarenteed over
public networks. There is little benefit to discuss .999999s
over public networks.
My point was to point out that there are applications for real-time
packet services where RSVP does not meet the requirements and
neither does ST-II (who tunnels IPv5 over a public network and
does any real-time work ??... none to my knowledge!)
In my previous posts on this thread today, I intentionally did not mention
public networks; sorry I did not specifically state the word
'private' . I assumed that Everyone in Networking knows that
.9999++ delivery over public networks was not what I was discussing.
Hopefully the confusion is clear.... when I mention real-time
data services, I am talking private datagram services, not
public.
Best Regards,
Tim
