Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ace.ee.lbl.gov!leres
From: leres@ace.ee.lbl.gov (Craig Leres)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: the comming appletalk crisis
Message-ID: <1959@helios.ee.lbl.gov>
Date: 21 Feb 89 03:23:24 GMT
References: <514@nanovx.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@helios.ee.lbl.gov
Reply-To: leres@helios.ee.lbl.gov (Craig Leres)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
Lines: 20

Matt Brandt writes:
> I think the problems (other than the node limit) are overstated. Be reasonable.
> On a large internet you might have a hundred or so bridges. The broadcasts
> made by bridges to each other aren't really all that big a burdon (100
> packets every ten seconds?)

A "background" broadcast rate of 10 pps is not reasonable. Sustained
broadcast rates over 1 pps prevent diskless Sun workstations from
booting. Also, the 36K packets per hour use up an unreasonable amount
of resources on every station on the ethernet.

> AppleTalk is generally much better thought out than most other protocols. The
> only problem is that it was thought out as a small nework solution. Thats
> what you get when you try to solve a problem (large networks) with the wrong
> solution (AppleTalk). I think it does a pretty good job considering...

Well, I'll grant you that AppleTalk is certainly "much better thought out"
than EtherTalk (or than Sun's diskless boot protocol for that matter).

		Craig