Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!kwe
From: kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England))
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: CATV data networking question
Summary: using MAP 802.4
Message-ID: <27676@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 3 Feb 89 18:27:22 GMT
References: <1422@ucsd.EDU>
Reply-To: kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England)
Followup-To: comp.dcom.lans
Distribution: all
Organization: Boston U. Information Technology
Lines: 26

In article <1422@ucsd.EDU> madden@ucsd.edu (Jim Madden) writes:
>UCSD has an extensive broadband cable plant that it uses for terminal
>connections and as a general purpose ethernet backbone.  We are now
>thinking about attaching new high volume applications to the existing
>plant and are interested in recommendations and experiences of others
>with 5 to 10 megabit per second CATV compatible data distribution
>products such as Applitek's Unilan and Unibridge, Bridge ethernet
>filters and TCP/IP routers,

>various MAP/TOP implementations, and

	You might want to be careful about committing to the broadband
token bus standard [802.4].  It may not go anywhere in terms of
installed base.
	Ungermann-Bass has dropped support for the broadband token bus
medium.  They say it is due to lack of market interest.  They will be
supporting MAP on Ethernet and, I suppose, other IEEE media standards.
	U-B pioneered MAP support through INI, a joint venture with GE
that GE bailed out of a while back.  U-B knows the MAP market through
INI, so I would take their "advice" seriously and I question whether
broadband token bus will ever reach a critical mass of support.  
	Anyway, broadband MAP is looking rather deadend-like.  But
perhaps broadband token bus has uses outside of MAP.  I would be
interested to know what other users think and what other vendors
already support 802.4.  Doesn't someone make a .3-.4 bridge already? 

	Kent England, Boston University