[6464] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Exchanges that matter...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeremy Porter)
Sun Dec 8 22:26:01 1996
To: Rob Liebschutz <rob@rjl.com>
cc: Nathan Stratton <nathan@netrail.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 08 Dec 1996 10:18:59 PST."
<CMM-RU.1.0.850069139.rob@solar.rjl.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 21:15:57 -0600
From: Jeremy Porter <jerry@fc.net>
In message <CMM-RU.1.0.850069139.rob@solar.rjl.com>, Rob Liebschutz writes:
>> On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Joe Rhett wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > > It is actually quite hard in practice to push a FDDI switch
>> > > into trouble, although theoretically it should be simple, modulo
>> > > the interesting effects that token-withholding can produce.
>> >
>> > Hm. Not sure what you mean. FDDI can certainly be over-utilized, that's
>> > not hard. On the other hard, FDDI doesn't fall down and die like
>> > Ethernet does when congested.
>> >
>> > > In practice, the limiting factor will tend to be the per-port
>> > > bandwidth rather than the aggregate bandwidth. One would have
>>
>> At the Atlanta-NAP we offer full duplex FDDI, why not try to get MFS to do
>> it? Cisco now has a full duplex FDDI card, so you can do 200 Mbs into the
>> NAP.
>
>Talk to Steve Feldman from MFS. At the October Nanog meeting he
>mentioned that their Gigaswitches (not sure if this is was just for
>MAE West) were ready to support Full Duplex FDDI and he invited
>volunteers to try it.
>
>Unfortunately, the GRF does not yet have a full duplex FDDI interface
>available, but when I asked about it, Ascend told me that they had
>implemented a CDDI interface in 3 weeks time to gain the business of
>of one customer.
Of course the rumor has it that CDDI was invented in about
that same length of time, so it can't be too hard to duplicate
that effort.
---
Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810
http://www.fc.net
