In message <199408312318.QAA08553@cincsac.arc.nasa.gov>, "Milo S. Medin" writes: | The issue behind the NAP's is that they could have been engineered to | use simpler and more mature interconnect technology at the start Agreed. | [...] deal with the consequences now rather than waiting until things | have calmed down later and less pain will be required on our part, and that | we would have better multivendor support. Also agreed, especially wrt the priority NAPs. Admittedly, though, NSF likes to test out new technology, and while their stated goal is to ensure full connectivity between their clients and everyone else, I imagine that they don't mind a bit of unproven technology being used to accomplish that goal. | And I will point to the fact that ATM isn't being used in the other | interconnects like the CIX, the FIXes, SWAB, MAE-East, etc... So I will | disagree that ATM is required for this sort of thing. I agree with you that ATM is not needed, however, fast packet is fast packet is fast packet, whether you layer something on top of it or not. SMDS is being used at the SWAB and will be offered as an access method into the CIX. MAE-EAST and the D.C. NAP (currently) do ethernet (and FDDI) layered on top of ATM. I am not a fast-packet fan, and some of my colleagues (at Sprint and elsewhere) agree with me. Others like fast-packet/cell-relay, but agree that it has some maturing to do before it's relied upon for anything critical, especially when it comes to touching down with other NSPs. We tend to prefer stabler, simpler technologies, and that's reflected (among other places) in the MAE-EAST+ development in the Gallows Road MFS colocate space which we will use instead of SWAB or the D.C. NAP, our desire to use the two FIXes as primary peering points, and also in design of the Pennsauken NAP. Sean. - -- Sean Doran <smd@sprint.net> SprintLink Engineering +1 800 669 8303