"Kent W. England" <kwe@geo.net> writes:
(BTW, isn't it scandalous that MFS would copy the PacBell NAP and build a MAE using S'com BPX switches?
No, just tragically stupid. Sean.
Why is it tragically stupid? We have had consistantly better performance from our PB NAP connection then Mae-West. Sean M. Doran wrote:
"Kent W. England" <kwe@geo.net> writes:
(BTW, isn't it scandalous that MFS would copy the PacBell NAP and build a MAE using S'com BPX switches?
No, just tragically stupid.
Sean.
-- Program Complete. End Of Line. ----------------------------------------------------- Mark Tripod http://www.exodus.net
On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Mark Tripod wrote:
Why is it tragically stupid? We have had consistantly better performance from our PB NAP connection then Mae-West.
I agree it is tragically stupid, but only because of the switch they are using. -- Nathan Stratton Telecom & ISP Consulting www.robotics.net nathan@robotics.net
What else is there, Cascade (Ascend) 500 series? The last time I looked at both of those switches the Stratcom was far more extensible than the Cascade. I will grant that neither switch was designed originally for a NAP architecture. Nathan Stratton wrote:
I agree it is tragically stupid, but only because of the switch they are using.
-- Program Complete. End Of Line. ----------------------------------------------------- Mark Tripod http://www.exodus.net
AT&T GCNS 2000... already proven. Ryan Brooks ryan@inc.net Mark Tripod wrote:
What else is there, Cascade (Ascend) 500 series? The last time I looked at both of those switches the Stratcom was far more extensible than the Cascade. I will grant that neither switch was designed originally for a NAP architecture.
Nathan Stratton wrote:
I agree it is tragically stupid, but only because of the switch they are using.
-- Program Complete.
End Of Line.
----------------------------------------------------- Mark Tripod http://www.exodus.net
participants (5)
-
Dorian R. Kim -
Mark Tripod -
Nathan Stratton -
Ryan Brooks -
Sean M. Doran