nanog mailing list archives
Re: Exchanges that matter...
From: Vadim Antonov <avg () pluris com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:56:00 -0800
salo () msc edu (Tim Salo) wrote:
From: Paul A Vixie <paul () vix com> [...] ... and they aren't subject to ATM's cell tax ...
I am surprised, (well, maybe not), that you aren't concerned about the excessive overhead present in FDDI networks...
FDDI is not a WAN technology. Losing 20% of bandwidth of a 10 ft piece of fiber is one thing. Losing 20% of bandwidth of a $3M/yr circuit is quite different. ATM as a LAN is probably ok, if it can compete with Gb Ethernet price/performance-wise. --vadim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter..., (continued)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... dave o'leary (Dec 16)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Dima Volodin (Dec 16)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Craig Nordin (Dec 16)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Tony Li (Dec 17)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Dennis Ferguson (Dec 17)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... David Schwartz (Dec 17)
- Re: NAP/ISP Saturation WAS: Re: Exchanges that matter... Hank Nussbacher (Dec 17)
- Re: Exchanges that matter... Alex.Bligh (Dec 05)
- RE: Exchanges that matter... Deepak Jain (Dec 05)
- Building exchanges that matter .. Joe Rhett (Dec 07)
- Re: Exchanges that matter... Wayne Bouchard (Dec 05)