Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!SIMTEL20.ARPA!WANCHO From: WANCHO@SIMTEL20.ARPA Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: DDN Backbone bandwidth vs. speed Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7-Oct-87 12:44:00 EDT Article-I.D.: SIMTEL20.WANCHO.12340611667.BABYL Posted: Wed Oct 7 12:44:00 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Oct-87 09:36:05 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 28 As the host administrator for this machine, I often get asked why the network is so slow. Part of the answer is that this host is but a 2040 with 512KW, soon to be upgraded to a 2065 with 4MW. That should make a significant difference in that we will finally be able to run the TCP service locked into the highest queue without swamping the system. But, for the rest of the answer, I point out that the DDN backbone is still operating at 56Kbps with nodes which apparently cannot handle higher rates. That configuration maybe was adequate when the net consisted of about 300 to 500 hosts and the protocol was the more efficient, but less flexible NCP (in my opinion). Now, we have an order of magnitude more hosts sending TCP traffic through the net, and the links are still 56Kbps. Oh, there may be more links, more cross-country paths, and even satellite hops added on a weekly basis to handle the traffic. But, the basic *speed* is still 56Kbps, although the bandwidth *may* be greater. Meanwhile, campus LANs architects sneer at anything less than 10Mbps to get any work done. Is it really unreasonable to ask why the backbone hasn't been upgraded to at least T1 service? Are there any plans for such an upgrade? If not, then what? Still more 56Kbps links? Does that *really* solve the problem? What should I tell my users (one in particular) to expect, and when? --Frank