|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 15:40:12 EST From: martillo@azea.clearpoint.com (Joachim Martillo @ azea) To: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu Cc: com-priv@psi.com, martillo@azea.clearpoint.com In-Reply-To: David J. Farber's message of Wed, 1 Jan 92 18:27:25 EST <9201012327.AA02086@pcpond.cis.upenn.edu> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 92 18:27:25 EST From: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David J. Farber) Posted-Date: Wed, 1 Jan 92 18:27:25 EST Just to bring a bit of facts to some of the discussions. When the DS3 network started , DS 3 routers were not easy to build -- they still are hard. IBM did a fine job of doing that!! We can maybe do better now but that's now!! Maybe, I don't understand all the intricacies, but I am puzzled at the assertion that DS3 routers are hard to build. DS3 is a 45 megabit service. Several vendors have been selling for several years ethernet/token ring/fractional T1 routers which can handle aggregate bandwidths of approximately 100 Mbs. Well, taking 4lan interfaces off of one of these boxes and installing a reasonable serial interface which can handle T3 speeds should produce a quite good DS3 router. There is no obvious reason why the government had to provide IBM, which is not a router company, with its own private test bed for router development at government expense. An open bid would have made more sense. Dave (one of the authors of the NRC report) Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |