[3536] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: sell shell accounts?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brett D. Watson)
Sat Jul 20 04:28:54 1996
To: Dave Siegel <dave@rtd.net>
cc: freedman@netaxs.com (Avi Freedman), vansax@atmnet.net, richards@netrex.com,
agislist@interstice.com, nanog@merit.edu
From: "Brett D. Watson" <bwatson@genuity.net>
Reply-To: bwatson@genuity.net
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 01:07:59 -0700
> > Acceptable arguments are:
>
> > o Switches can handle more throughput
>
> That's difficult to quantify in theory *or* practice.
>
> > o Switched networks are easier for humans (or at least, humans without
> > huge brians && many internal registers) to design/debug/maintain.
>
> More levels of indirection does not mean it's easier for humans necessarily.
> In fact, there are many more nobs to miss, and more places for error to
> be introduced into your engineering model.
i would agree strongly. putting a bunch of switches between two routers
makes troubleshooting that much more involved. if i can't get a packet from
router A to router F (assuming B,C,D,and E are atm switches) where has the
link broken down? you have to go to each switch and look at incoming/outgoing
cells to see which is not sending or receiving. this scenario definately
makes more work for the network operator doing the troubleshooting. it
certainly doesn't make things *easier*.
-brett
