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.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: The Coming AppleTalk Crisis
Summary: More nodes on EtherTalk doesn't help
Message-ID: <28088@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 17 Feb 89 22:07:52 GMT
References: <724@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> <28066@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <25980@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England)
Followup-To: comp.protocols.appletalk
Organization: Boston U. Information Technology
Lines: 22

In article <25980@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes:
>I just wanted to point out that a lot of people at Apple are acutely
>aware of the problems of large Appletalk internets. We work on one. We
>are all waiting for the promised Ethertalk upgrade with as much
>anticipation as you are. 
>
>				Peter Desnoyers

	Here is evidence of what I am speaking of in my follow-up on
the upcoming AppleTalk crisis.  Apple (or at least P Desnoyers) does
not understand that the solution to the AppleTalk problem is not more
nodes on EtherTalk.

	More nodes on EtherTalk will simply encourage people to put
large EtherTalk nets on top of their TCP/IP nets and then -watch out!-
when they start wondering why their network has gone to hell.

	I see no evidence that Apple, with all its resources,
understands what a large network means in terms of protocol.  If
someone from Apple would like to discuss what I am talking about, you
can reach me at kwe@bu-it.bu.edu.  I am ready to find out if you are
serious about networking.