Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf.edu!wet!epsilon
From: epsilon@wet.UUCP (Eric P. Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Naive questions about subnets & domains
Summary: Rebuttal to RL "Bob" Morganoi
Message-ID: <476@wet.UUCP>
Date: 23 Aug 89 09:10:21 GMT
References: <1072@adobe.UUCP> <164@jove.dec.com> <4699@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: epsilon@wet.UUCP (Eric P. Scott)
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco
Lines: 42

In article <4699@portia.Stanford.EDU> morgan@Jessica.UUCP (RL "Bob" Morgan) writes:
>                                                   I have been
>somewhat involved with the case of a local university that is in much
>the same boat.  The computer science dept is very anxious to get
>connected, and wants to lease a T1 line right away to the nearby
>connection point of the local NSFNET-sponsored regional network.  The
>computer center, however, is much happier to wait for the statewide
>university system, which has an existing 56Kbps network, to start
>supporting IP, connect to the Internet in one place, and eventually
>upgrade the campus to T1.

Mr. Morgan somewhat misrepresents the facts.  The local
university campus in question has its own IP network, does not
subnet, and is for the most part in one place geographically.
It has its own secondary domain and no current plans to
subdivide it.  As such, I don't see what relevance this case has
to do with the current thread of discussion.

The statewide data network will never offer the performance or
reliability of a BARRNET connection.  The "connection in one
place" would be hundreds of miles away "in the wrong direction,"
through many gateways under different administrative control.
Furthermore, the majority of IP traffic is expected to be
exchanged with current BARRNET members.  The "computer center"
people have no experience with IP networking, having been
sidetracked into 3Com/Bridge XNS by an ex-employee.

The major problem comes from BARRNET's insistence that potential
members purchase Proteon hardware, while the University uses
Cisco equipment almost exclusively.  Nearly all serious
connectivity failures have been traced to existing Proteon
equipment.  The Cisco equipment has proven itself admirably.  If
the University has two active connections to the Internet, the
gateways must enforce policy-based routing.  Cisco, itself an
associate BARRNET member, has experience with this.  I've noticed
that, even with two competent vendors, you end up with a lot of
finger pointing when things don't work.

					-=EPS=-

// Opinions are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of my
// employer.  I have no relation to either Proteon or Cisco.