nanog mailing list archives
Re: Ungodly packet loss rates
From: Tony Li <tli () jnx com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
>One can certainly make the argument that running large traffic >flows through shared interconnects is bad engineering Yes, and I think the operative word is "shared" as in "shared access media". Shared access to the media is not relevant. Scalability of the shared media is. Private interconnects are simply more scalable than shared interconnects. I trust that an example is not necessary. Tony - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates, (continued)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Rod Nayfield (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Robert Laughlin (Oct 23)
- RE: Ungodly packet loss rates Chris A. Icide (Oct 22)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Sean Donelan (Oct 22)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates John Curran (Oct 22)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Curtis Villamizar (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates John Curran (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Paul Ferguson (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Jonathan Heiliger (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Kent W. England (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Tony Li (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Darin Wayrynen (Oct 24)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Tony Li (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Kent W. England (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Tim Salo (Oct 24)