[2592] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Trust and the T-3 Network - encore
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Schoffstall)
Thu Mar 19 01:06:59 1992
In-Reply-To: <9203150711.AA07448@tmc.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 00:07:44 -0400
To: "Stan Barber" <sob@tmc.edu>
Cc: "Gordon Cook" <cook@tmn.com>, com-priv@psi.com
From: "Martin Schoffstall" <schoff@mail.psi.net>
Reply-To: schoff@psi.com
Sorry for the delayed response, too much travel, i wanted to respond to
this instead of Rugo's last entertaining message (i didn't want Brian to
start complaining again). ;-)
>
>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.
actually no. but too esoteric and boring for the list. let's do it over
a couple of cranberry juices.
> 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?
I believe that to be true.
> 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.
"Hopefully" is an issue of degree of integration and seamlessness. for
instance industry-wide we once upon
a time could only get routers to talk to each
other on an ethernet with a default route, then with a standard routing
protocol (don't groan) like RIP. Next we moved to synchronous serial
interconnect through PPP. Then we move up to interoperable real routing
protocols like OSPF. And of course everything talks SNMP.
But when you bring in the next vendor you find some gotchas and work
around them or get them fixed.
Is management easier with homogenality? Tactically yes,
strategically no.
And ease of management is only one issue in making choices.
> 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?
no
> 4. You imply that since the real difference among the vendors is
> the SOFTWARE,
yes
>that the hardware is more homogenous.
no
> If that were
> true, then why is there not more T3 stuff available?
Market forces - like high cost of local loop and other things.
> 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.
yep
>
>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?
>
I'd vote for interoperability, I think the hundreds of people who are at
ietf in SanDiego implicitly are voting that also.
Marty
