oleary@noc.sura.net (dave o'leary) (01/16/91)
In article <81325@sgi.sgi.com> vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes: >In article <9101131946.AA28696@ccci>, tcs@ccci.UUCP (Terry Slattery) writes: >> ... >> >> I don't recall ever hearing about a PPP interoperability test. Perhaps >> Interop should consider setting up a demonstration of PPP at its next >> conference? ... > >There was talk of an INTEROP PPP test. I heard at first it would be >restricted to "commercial implementations that would be available to end >users by Oct. 1990", or words to that effect. That sort of requirement has >a chilling effect on what is necessarily a low profit product. (How much >would you pay for a PPP implementation? How many copies at that price >would be required for my employer to recover my time to port or implement >it and to pay for stocking, distributing, and advertising it? How many >copies would be required to recover the INTEROP fees to participate in the >demo?) By the end of the 2nd FDDI Hot Staging, I was told the rules were >much looser. Perhaps I just misunderstood at first. [other stuff about interoperability tests deleted] > >Vernon Schryver, vjs@sgi.com > SURAnet is eagerly looking forward to the day when router vendors have implemented PPP. Since we run as a sort of "cooperative" with each site making its own purchasing decisions, providing a wider variety of choices to our customers is very important. We will maintain a list of vendors whose products interoperate with those currently on our network, and recommend them to new customers. Those that don't interoperate, well, we won't recommend them. dave p.s. I am confident that the rest of the SURAnet technical staff agrees with me on this point. p.p.s. to router vendors: we will probably connect 30 or more new sites this year. Maybe a lot more.