Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!PUCC!GETTES From: GETTES@PUCC.BITNET (Michael R. Gettes) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l Subject: Re: BITNET Restructuring Proposal Message-ID: Date: 12 Feb 90 15:48:43 GMT Sender: Node Management Discussion Reply-To: Node Management Discussion Organization: Princeton University, CIT Network Systems Lines: 20 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 9 Feb 90 21:56:18 -0600 from On Fri, 9 Feb 90 21:56:18 -0600 Jeff Hayward said: >It occurs to me, (and others, I think) that the wrong variables are >being optimized here. Why should CREN build and perpetuate a >structure that requires massive 3081 support, at large cost, to >achieve an average 70k bits per second (750MB/day) throughput? I >mean, really, a $4000 cisco router can do about three orders of >magnitude better than that, 'cause that's what it's good at. My opinion is that this is an obvious goal for the future of the network. However, the smallest entity on our network is a file. Routers do not deal with files, but packets. Personally, I see VMNET as the next step in the evolution of BITNET (whatever that may be). VMNET is quite valuable in solving some very immediate problems of load. So, in the short run, I believe we are exploiting the correct variables for the interim. How long will the interim be is a different problem. /mrg This opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my management or CREN.