[5823] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Airplane crashing into Atlanta-NAP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert E. Seastrom)
Sun Oct 27 15:14:14 1996
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 15:11:53 -0500 (EST)
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@bifrost.seastrom.com>
To: darin@good.net
CC: freedman@netaxs.com, nathan@netrail.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: <199610270242.TAA23660@indy.good.net> (darin@good.net)
From: "Darin Wayrynen" <darin@good.net>
> Of course, I was half-joking, but why only one Gigaswitch? Why not two,
> for redundancy, as is implemented at Pennsauken?
>
> With a backup FDDI ring?
> And I assume, spare power supplies and processors?
Which begs a question: why use a Giga-switch at all?
With the head of line blocking feature/problem and scalability only to
full duplex 100 mbps is a Gigaswitch something that should be used in
a next generation NAP?
I'm not suggesting it's intended to be the next generation NAP, but
you'd think that they would want to use the latest switches and
technology available, rather than continue down the FDDI road.
I think Nathan is trying to use proven technology that works rather
than feeling wind whistling between his toes as they hang over the
bleeding edge.
---Rob
