[bit.listserv.big-lan] BIG-LAN Digest, Volume 2, Number 10, Monday, February 5, 1990

BIG-MOD@SUVM (02/05/90)

BIG-LAN DIGEST           Monday, 5 February 1990       Volume 2 : Issue 10

Today's Topics:

                   Re: Information about NSFnet router
            References/Experiences with twisted pair ethernet

Moderated by John Wobus, Syracuse University

Relevant addresses:
                                  Internet               BITNET
Submissions:            big-lan@suvm.acs.syr.edu      BIG-LAN@SUVM
Subscriptions:  big-lan-request@suvm.acs.syr.edu      BIG-REQ@SUVM
LISTSERV:              listserv@suvm.acs.syr.edu     LISTSERV@SUVM
Moderator:              jmwobus@suvm.acs.syr.edu      JMWOBUS@SUVM


Date: Friday, 2 February 1990 12:51:18 EST
From: Gene.Hastings@boole.ece.cmu.edu
Reply-To: hastings@psc.edu
Subject:      Re: Information about NSFnet router

There is no "official" NSFNET router, at least in the sense of one you MUST
buy in order to inter-operate. The NSFNET backbone itself uses routers
built on IBM RT/PCs (the entire node system is called an NSS, for Nodal
Switching System), with local connections at the 13 backbone nodes.  (More
to come, number dependent on Congressional funding handwaving.)

The Mid-Level networks connecting at the node sites can use any router they
wish, provided they have a suitable LAN interface (Ethernet an 4MB token ring
are officially supported, but I know of no installations using Token Ring)
and will run the proper routing protocol exchanges with the NSS. The
protocol used is an extension of EGP2, and there are many choices: Proteon
and cisco both supply compatible routing software, and in addition, some
sites use general purpose machines running a package called gated (like
Vaxes, Suns, etc.).

An important aspect of the architecture is that the router implementations
have a good bit of administrative control over what routing information is
accepted and believed. This aids in the engineering of traffic flow with the
provision of redundant routing for backup purposes, and also limits the
amount of chaos that can be caused by an erroneous route being advertised.
The specific platform this runs on is much less important, and can be chosen
with regard to other constraints, like interoperability with a mid-level
network's existing equipment and monitoring tools.

(For example, one still cannot put a Proteon router and a cisco router on
opposite ends of a serial line. Though the release of the RFC on a
Point-to-Point protocol should mean that this limitation will go away soon,
but that doesn't help you if you need it to work together yesterday.)



Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 10:34:50 EST
From: Alan S. Watt <swatt%noc.net.yale.edu@YALECS>
Subject:      References/Experiences with twisted pair ethernet

We are looking at the purchase of a significant amount of twisted
pair ethernet gear and I am soliciting references from people who
have experience with one or more of: Optical Data Systems,
SynOptics, and Cabletron gear.

If you're willing to take 5 minutes and share your experiences, I
would appreciate it very much.

        - Alan S. Watt
          High Speed Networking, Yale University
          (203) 432-6600 X394

Disclaimer:  "Make Love, Not War -- Be Prepared For Both"
                - Edelman's Sporting Goods [and Marital Aids?]


End of BIG-LAN Digest