[6437] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Exchanges that matter...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Salo)
Fri Dec 6 10:33:10 1996
From: salo@msc.edu (Tim Salo)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 09:20:04 -0600 (CST)
To: avg@pluris.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:56:00 -0800
> From: Vadim Antonov <avg@pluris.com>
> To: paul@vix.com, salo@msc.edu
> Subject: Re: Exchanges that matter...
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
[slashing and reordering your response slightly]
> ATM as a LAN is probably ok, if it can compete with Gb Ethernet
> price/performance-wise.
Precisely my point, (which you managed to delete in your response).
Price/performance seems like a pretty good analysis technique, at
least for technologies that pass some basic hurdles, like "working."
> FDDI is not a WAN technology. Losing 20% of bandwidth of a 10 ft
> piece of fiber is one thing. Losing 20% of bandwidth of a
> $3M/yr circuit is quite different.
I don't understand. Are you trying to say that price/performance
analysis is appropriate for LAN technologies, but not for WAN technologies?
Now, I could understand if you said, "I analyzed ATM WAN services for
one configuration once and concluded that other technologies provided
better cost/performance in all possible configurations," or even
"I don't think ATM products and standards are mature enough for my
application." However, you seem to be saying that wide-area technologies
should be assessed based on total cost and overhead, rather than on
cost/performance...
-tjs
