[1189] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: T3 Network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin L. Schoffstall)
Wed Aug 14 12:23:10 1991
In-Reply-To: <9108141317.AA28512@cise.cise.nsf.gov>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 11:02:09 -0400
To: "Stephen Wolff" <steve@ncri.cise.nsf.gov>
Cc: "Martin Lee Schoffstall" <schoff@psi.com>, com-priv@psi.com
From: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <schoff@mail.psi.net>
>From the initial T3 NSFNet given in AnnArbor it appeared to
many that what was being tried on the DSU/CSU T3 signaling was
non-standard. If things have changed I'd love to hear about it.
In addition the link level protocol down to the customer premise router
appears to be proprietary enough that it REQUIRES a custom built unix
router from whoever. Supporting PPP as an alternative access method
would have been a real step to open systems internetworking.
There are other minor points, and I'm hoping that the above is or is
about to go away on the NSFNet.
The T3 network is a live and learn situation, which in many areas
deserves only applause; however, it would be nice to have open discourse
about some of the more negative realities.
I honestly believe that the problem is more than the telco's - the
DSU/CSU replacements announced today to the regional-techs is a case in point.
Marty
----------
>DATE: Wed, 14 Aug 91 09:17:12 EDT
>FROM: Stephen Wolff <steve@ncri.cise.nsf.gov>
>
>> ... I think this is too strong
>> considering the rollout of something so new under the sun that it has
>> to use proprietary technologies and non-commercial equipment - though
>> the adoption of commercial cisco software is heartening to many.
>
>Why is IBM's router technology any more "proprietary" than Cisco's or
>Wellfleet's or anybody else's?
>
>Yes, T3 is tougher than we had imagined. As far as we know we're the first
>non-channelized T3 network anywhere, but we did not expect to find that a
>major source of difficulty would be that (unlike T1) T3 from different phone
>companies does not necessarily interoperate.
>
>-s
>
