Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!kwe From: kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England)) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk Subject: Re: 254 node limit on ethernet problem (clarified) Message-ID: <20824@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: 22 Mar 88 18:21:51 GMT References: <8803211809.AA13259@scgvaxd.SCG.HAC.COM> Reply-To: kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England) Followup-To: comp.protocols.appletalk Organization: Boston Univ. Information Tech. Dept. Lines: 23 In article morgan@jessica.stanford.EDU writes: > >AppleTalk has outgrown its original design goals (as have IP and >DECNet, to name two others), and some hard thinking has to be done >about where it goes from here. I think the implication is that the >fix to this problem would only come along with a top-to-bottom >redesign. AppleTalk is definitely a small network design. I think it's a good design, but it suffers when you try to enlarge it. Problems include: o totally dynamic configuration o liberal broadcasting for names and addresses o time-outs and retrys are just too fast o no internet These are among the reasons I don't think it wise to build campus-wide AppleTalks, but rather integrate into a campus-wide IP network. No reason to reinvent the wheel. Gateway AT to IP. Kent England Boston University