mailing list archives
RE: Another UUNET Explanation
From: "Chris A. Icide" <chris () nap net>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 23:23:01 -0500
From: Sean M. Doran[SMTP:smd () clock org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 1997 10:21 PM
To: nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: Another UUNET Explanation
A clumsy tech or a backhoe takes out a physical path
between two POPs, each of which contains several routers
that form part of this flat network.
What happens now?
Layer 2 heals itself, without the knowledge of layer 3. Layer 3
experiences a latency increase between certain paths.
Sorry, had to do it.
However, I agree wholeheartedly. If I had a Layer 2 protocol designed
solely for the transport of a protocol to end all protocols, perhaps I
would choose to use it, however, in this fast paced industry, will we
ever have the "perfect" protocol (okay, ever is a big word). I suspect
that as long as there is some value in making the "network" do
something it wasn't originally designed to do, someone will hack a
way to do it, and rake in some money.
That money will draw other people to into either parroting the
pioneer, or hacking thier own way, or perhaps denouncing the
hack as un-pure.
It's a never-ending circle, hacker, parrot, purist?
Rwaaah, Cracker wants a Polly! (polly always gets the cracker)
Chris A. Icide
- Re: Routing vs Switching (was Re: Another UUNET Explanation), (continued)