[6560] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Van Baalen)
Fri Dec 20 14:05:20 1996
From: Jim Van Baalen <vansax@atmnet.net>
To: paul@vix.com (Paul A Vixie)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199612201744.JAA03564@wisdom.home.vix.com> from "Paul A Vixie" at Dec 20, 96 09:44:37 am
>
> The GIGAswitch has theoretical difficulties. Head of line blocking and so
> on. But the exchanges that use GIGAswitches aren't having measurable
> problems which are traceable to the GIGAswitches. The "O" in NANOG is for
> "operations" and in the field of operations, anything that works gets used.
Is it the concensus of this group that the "GIGAswitches aren't having
measurable problems"? I have recently received messages from the "Operators"
at MAE-West that don't seem to support this position.
>
> There is a conclusion to be drawn from this regarding ATM.
>
I run an IP/ATM network with which I am happy. Most NSPs either use ATM
for transport or are rumored to be moving in that direction.
Jim
