Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!nsipo.arc.nasa.gov!medin From: medin@nsipo.arc.nasa.gov (Milo S. Medin) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk Subject: Re: Appletalk Phase ][ Message-ID: <27262@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Date: 20 Jun 89 05:59:09 GMT References: Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: medin@cincsac.arc.nasa.gov (Milo S. Medin) Organization: NASA Science Internet Project Office Lines: 24 All this only goes to show that Apple has yet again decided against using standard protocols like IP (or even OSI) and has again decided to reinvent the wheel, and make the same mistakes that were made before. If Apple spent a tenth of the effort making IP net building as easy as plugging together Appletalk, they and we would be much better off. This is a classic case of Not Invented Here. There are well known solutions to the types of internet problems ATP2 has built into it. It's obselete as a protocol even before it's fielded. The folks at Apple should try and open their eyes a bit. Even if the did everything differently at transport and above, running over IP at the network layer would be a big win, and allow use of standard routers and standard routing protocols, and really allow the Research community to interact much more with each other. It's really too bad when you think about how much better it could have been. It's not like SNA. Appletalk wasn't built in the '70's. Solutions were known and readily available. They just wern't used. There is no excuse for this. Thanks, Milo "Ethertalk: A poor implementation of a poor architecture."