Re: Comparing an old flow snapshot with some packet size data

"Dorian R. Kim" <dorian@cic.net> Sat, 10 August 1996 05:49 UTC

Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa06722; 10 Aug 96 1:49 EDT
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa06718; 10 Aug 96 1:49 EDT
Received: from murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01982; 10 Aug 96 1:49 EDT
Received: from mailing-list by murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.6.9/1.0) id PAA15532; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 15:42:13 +1000
Received: from munnari.OZ.AU by murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.6.9/1.0) with SMTP id PAA15503; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 15:31:08 +1000
Received: from nic.hq.cic.net by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.56) id FA08465; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 15:31:03 +1000 (from dorian@cic.net)
Received: from nic.hq.cic.net (nic.hq.cic.net [198.87.19.2]) by nic.hq.cic.net (8.7.5/CICNet) with SMTP id BAA24701; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 01:28:29 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 01:28:28 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@ietf.org
From: "Dorian R. Kim" <dorian@cic.net>
X-Orig-Sender: dorian@cic.net
Reply-To: "Dorian R. Kim" <dorian@cic.net>
To: Andrew Partan <asp@partan.com>
Cc: Brian Carpenter CERN-CN <brian@dxcoms.cern.ch>, big-internet@munnari.oz.au
Subject: Re: Comparing an old flow snapshot with some packet size data
In-Reply-To: <199608100420.AAA11116@home.partan.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.960810011500.23441H-100000@nic.hq.cic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 10 Aug 1996, Andrew Partan wrote:

> The question is, if you were designing a backbone today, what would
> you use for your hub LANs?  Fddi?  Or 100baseT?  100baseT is probably
> going to be a lot cheaper (it looks like there is going to be a
> *lot* of it made), but its MTU is 1500.

Neither, I would think. Neither FDDI nor 100baseT is fast enough to be useful
in interconnecting backbone routers.

If it's a question of interconnecting customer aggregation boxes to backbone
routers, I'd rather go with FDDI rather than 100baseT as FDDI degrades more
gracefully under load. Given that full duplex FDDI is now a possibility, the
only disadvantage of FDDI is cost. (well... there is more overhead to, but..)

> Can you get by with this?  Or do you really need to invest in LANs
> that do 4470?

I think that today is a particularly bad time to think about this issue in
operational terms as point to point connection speeds have made all
exisiting and widely deployed multi-access technologies inadequate, and next
generation technologies that promises order of magnitude improvements are not
here yet.

Any solution arrived at, FDDI, switched FDDI, switched full duplex FDDI,
100baseT, switched 100baseT and ATM are all stop gap measures at best.

> Any high performance internet folks out there?  What would you do
> (or want us to do)?

I would think that the problem of just simply going faster and the problem of
making massively aggregated flows flow through bigger pipes are not quite the
same thing.

Not that this is much of an answer. :)

-dorian