Re: CIDR, Sprint and the Big guys.

["Jeff Young" <young () mci net>]

you know, 

i wish that i knew what any of you guys were talking about.
it gives me no end of amusement to listen to people postulate
about how we run our network.  SNR is getting pretty high
in this discussion.  it's beginning to sound more like a gossip
session than a discussion group.

Jeff Young
young () mci net

> Return-Path: JimFleming () unety net
> Return-Path: nanog-owner () merit edu
> Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by postoffice.reston.mci.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA05058; 
> Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:46:55 -0500
> Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) id PAA03220 for nanog-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 
> 15:32:15 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from doorstep.unety.net (root () usi-00-10 Naperville unety net [204.70.107.30]) by merit.edu 
> (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with SMTP id PAA03215 for <nanog () merit edu>; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:32:12 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from webster.unety.net (webster.unety.net [206.31.202.8]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id 
> OAA01348; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:26:55 -0600
> Received: by webster.unety.net with Microsoft Mail
>       id <01BB23C5.76052A00 () webster unety net>; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:29:27 -0600
> Message-ID: <01BB23C5.76052A00 () webster unety net>
> From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming () unety net>
> To: "'Michael Dillon'" <michael () memra com>,
>         "nanog () merit edu"
>        <nanog () merit edu>
> Subject: RE: CIDR, Sprint and the Big guys.
> Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:29:26 -0600
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Sender: owner-nanog () merit edu
> Precedence: bulk
> Content-Length: 1254
>
> On Saturday, April 06, 1996 6:04 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael () memra com] wrote:
> @On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Wolfgang Henke wrote:
> @
> @> As Robert Moskovitz pointed out, even the growth in common used backbones
> @> speeds is not keeping up:
> @> 
> @> 1.       56 kbps    
> @> 2.    1.544 Mbps  increase by 24
> @> 3.   44.736 Mbps  increase by 28
> @> 4.  155.520 Mbps  increase by merely 3 
> @> 
> @> Just keeping in step with past growth patterns would require a step
> @> to OC-24c at 1244.15 Mbps now, but there are no routers which come
> @> even close to those speeds.
> @
> @Even backbones are not backbones anymore. Sprint, MCI et al. operate
> @meshes with multiple internal paths. If you have an average of 8 alternate
> @paths of OC3c, then you get closer to a 24x multiple of DS3. Of course 
> @it's not really that simple, but I don't think that things are as bad
> @as they look in your table above.
> @
> @
> @Michael Dillon                                    Voice: +1-604-546-8022
>
> But don't forget those "bit buckets" that are sitting there ready to handle the
> social engineering needs of the net...;-)
>
> ...I wonder who has to empty those bit buckets...???...that must be a messy job...
>
>
> --
> Jim Fleming
> UNETY Systems, Inc.
> Naperville, IL 60563
>
> e-mail: JimFleming () unety net