Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!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: the comming appletalk crisis
Summary: I overreacted
Message-ID: <28183@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 21 Feb 89 19:58:59 GMT
References: <8902211606.AA11107@dsunx1.DSRD.ORNL.GOV>
Reply-To: kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England)
Followup-To: comp.protocols.appletalk
Organization: Boston U. Information Technology
Lines: 25


	Peter, I am sorry.  I flamed all over you when I shouldn't
have.  I wish I knew exactly who at Apple to flame over, but I
probably shouldn't do that either.  At any rate, I will endeavor to be
more polite and instructive in future as all good netnewsers should be.

	The even-tempered Mr. Hedrick gave the proper, reasoned
response that I should have given in the first place.  Please study his
article carefully.

	wnn@dsunx1.dsrd.ornl.gov (W. N. Naegeli) mentions multicast.
Of course, multicast would be an excellent way to lessen the broadcast
load on the Ethernet.  AppleTalk and IP could benefit from widespread
implementation of multicast.  Backward compatibility holds up the
process.  Perhaps AT has a chance to make some progress in this area?

	In summary, my points were:

	1) AppleTalk needs much work before it will scale up well.

	2) TCP/IP needs much work before it will plug and play easily. 

	(I wish that was all I had said the first time.)

	Kent England, Boston University