Re: Exchanges that matter...

[salo () msc edu (Tim Salo)]

> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:56:00 -0800
> From: Vadim Antonov <avg () pluris com>
> To: paul () vix com, salo () msc edu
> Subject: Re: Exchanges that matter...
> Cc: nanog () merit edu
        [slashing and reordering your response slightly]
> ATM as a LAN is probably ok, if it can compete with Gb Ethernet
> price/performance-wise.

Precisely my point, (which you managed to delete in your response).
Price/performance seems like a pretty good analysis technique, at
least for technologies that pass some basic hurdles, like "working."

> 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.

I don't understand.  Are you trying to say that price/performance
analysis is appropriate for LAN technologies, but not for WAN technologies?

Now, I could understand if you said, "I analyzed ATM WAN services for
one configuration once and concluded that other technologies provided
better cost/performance in all possible configurations," or even
"I don't think ATM products and standards are mature enough for my
application."  However, you seem to be saying that wide-area technologies
should be assessed based on total cost and overhead, rather than on
cost/performance...

-tjs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -