Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!boulder!daemon
From: forster@cisco.com (Jim Forster)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re: Frame Relay?
Message-ID: <35801@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 10 Jun 91 10:43:25 GMT
Sender: daemon@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Lines: 19

>> The other advantage (or disadvantage) is that the frame relay network
>> will most probably be run by a commercial provider for the whole
>> frame relay net, whereas in the case of leased lines you'll have
>> to control all active parts in your net. So it's mostly a different
>> way of splitting the administrative responsibilities.

These statements are true, but perhaps aren't complete, as besides the 2
alternatives listed above (Public FR Network and Private leased line &
router network), there is a third: Public Router Network.  This is what
PSI, Alternet, CerfNet, Infonet (Infolan), Finnish PTT, and now ANS are
providing.  Many PTT's in Europe and Japan are also planning or considering
such offerings.

In my original posting I was trying to point out that from a purely
technical viewpoint, I don't see any Bandwidth/Cost advantages of FR over
Router Networks.  The addressing advantages are subtle, but sometimes
significant.

  -- Jim