mailing list archives
Re: Another UUNET Explanation
From: "Dorian R. Kim" <dorian () blackrose org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 03:23:29 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 1 Jul 1997, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
This is not exactly true. Frame Relay -- if designed properly, and with
good frame switches -- can be - IMHO - 10's of times better.
How? Does good frame relay switches accelerate photons or something?
Frame Relay allows yout he ability to psuedo-directly connection various
pop's together, and gives that clean appearance of a 'no-hop' back bone.
Why route when you can switch?
Yes, both frame relay and ATM give the "appearance" of a 'no-hop' backbone.
Just because traceroute doesn't show the switch hop in the middle doesn't mean
that they aren't there.
So what is inherently better about that, unless you are into marketing
I can see the argument that with current generation of rather deficient
routers, switches have smaller per-hop latency, but even this is pretty silly
since that difference is a noise lost in the cross continental/cross oceanic
This should be a moot point any way with the impending introduction of real
routers in to the networks.
Re: Another UUNET Explanation Nathan Stratton (Jul 02)
Re: Another UUNET Explanation Ehud Gavron (Jul 02)
Re: Another UUNET Explanation Martin J. Hannigan (Jul 02)
Re: Another UUNET Explanation Steve Mansfield (Jul 02)
Re: Another UUNET Explanation jprovo (Jul 02)
RE: Another UUNET Explanation Chad Skidmore (Jul 02)
RE: Another UUNET Explanation Chris A. Icide (Jul 02)