North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Internet II is coming...

  • From: Jeff Young
  • Date: Fri Oct 11 00:07:39 1996

lets just say, 'it works' and leave it at that.

Jeff Young
[email protected]

> Return-Path: [email protected] 
> Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by postoffice.Reston.mci.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA20378; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 10:27:49 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from localhost ([email protected]) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) with SMTP id KAA17522; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 10:19:08 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 10 Oct 1996 10:18:55 -0400
> Received: (from [email protected]) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) id KAA17495 for nanog-outgoing; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 10:18:55 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from bifrost.seastrom.com (bifrost.seastrom.com [192.148.252.10]) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id KAA17485 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 10:18:52 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: (from [email protected]) by bifrost.seastrom.com (8.7.5/960809.RS) id KAA16418; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 10:18:30 -0400 (EDT)
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 10:18:30 -0400 (EDT)
> Message-Id: <[email protected]>
> From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]
> In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from Jim Browning on
> 	Wed, 9 Oct 1996 18:17:54 -0700)
> Subject: Re: Internet II is coming...
> Sender: [email protected]
> Content-Type: text
> Content-Length: 1334
> 
> 
>    From: Jim Browning <[email protected]>
> 
>    >| Oh, and by the way, given that the local loop provider has OC-48 SONET
>    >| provisioned to this particular location, we could just as easily have
>    >| provisioned the connection to our backbone at OC12 as opposed to OC3. 
>     Did
>    >| I miss the Cisco announcement of an OC12 IP-SONET card?
>    >
>    >You may wish to discuss an NDA presentation on the forthcoming
>    >generation of routers from each of Cisco, Juniper and Bay Networks.
> 
>    Again, my post was based upon your assertion that this could be done today. 
>    I sincerely hope that a new generation of routers is forthcoming asap that 
>    can match ATM speeds.
> 
> So, Jim, since your metric is what can be done _today_, could you tell
> us just exactly how many ATM switch vendors can offer me _working_
> (not beta) OC12 interface cards _today_?  The only one that I can
> think of off the top of my head that I'd be willing to risk my
> credibility as an engineer with management by going with is Fore.  Of
> course, that assumes that I'd be willing to risk my credibility as an
> engineer by spec'ing ATM in the first place, which is a shaky
> proposition to say the least.
> 
> To paraphrase the old adage, when all you have is an ATM switch,
> everything looks like aggregatable bandwidth. 
> 
>                                         ---Rob
> 
> 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -