Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!tandem!netcomsv!jbreeden From: jbreeden@netcom.COM (John Breeden) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: FDDI as a network backbone Message-ID: <1991Jun4.185405.12771@netcom.COM> Date: 4 Jun 91 18:54:05 GMT References: <284bd7a7.2723@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> Distribution: comp Organization: Netcom - Somewhere in the S.F. Bay Area Lines: 19 >In an article hargrove@bee.corp.sgi.com (Mark Hargrove) wrote: >>I've recently heard it alleged that using FDDI technology as a network >>backbone (as a way of aggregating multiple ethernets) would be a >>disaster. Further, I was told that FDDI is a very fragile technology, >>not suitable for production networks, not really suitable for much >>at all outside the lab -- and probably never would be. >> Sounds like techno-sales speak to me - whoever told you that has some other vested interest (or he's repeating someone else's garbage). The only negative for FDDI today is it's per port cost. -- John Robert Breeden, jbreeden@netcom.com, apple!netcom!jbreeden, ATTMAIL:!jbreeden ------------------------------------------------------------------- "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from. If you don't like any of them, you just wait for next year's model."