[2544] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: Trust and the T-3 Network - encore

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stan Barber)
Sun Mar 15 02:13:01 1992

From: sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 01:11:51 CST
To: schoff@psi.com
Cc: "Gordon Cook" <cook@tmn.com>, com-priv@psi.com

I'm sorry, Marty. I appears that you agree and disagree with me. Let me be
sure that I understand what you are saying:
        1. NyserNET had a router vendor that PSI inherited and PSI used 
        some different vendors for the expansion of the commerical business.
        So, PSI is hetergenous. Some other networks are as well, so my
        generalization about single vendor use among network providers
        is not a generalization, but the exception, right? 
        2. I said that all the software did not interoperate. You say
        that "hopefully" they all work seemlessly together. I would deduce
        that that means that sometimes they don't, so that would seem
        to support my clain that different vendors hardware/software don't
        always work together. That seems to support the idea that using
        one vendor's hardware would make it easier to make a network
        easier to manage.
        3. You say that the SOFTWARE difference it important even if it make
        the network operator's job more complex since that will make the
        software better. Am I interpreting that right?
        4. You imply that since the real difference among the vendors is
        the SOFTWARE, that the hardware is more homogenous. If that were
        true, then why is there not more T3 stuff available? Why is there
        such differences between the FDDI offereings? I think there are
        still some major differences in Hardware and Software yet to be
        worked out.

Help me here. I am confused. I don't know what you disagree with and what
you agree with, but it seems you agree with some of what I am saying.

Postscript: If there is still work to be done in making the software better,
is the goal more efficient software, easier to manage software or highly
interoperable software? If all three, which are the rankings from most
to least important?


-- 
Stan           internet: sob@bcm.tmc.edu         Director, Networking 
Olan           uucp: rutgers!bcm!sob             and Systems Support
Barber         Opinions expressed are only mine. Baylor College of Medicine

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post