Dan Linder skrev:
>On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Dave McGuire wrote:
>> I apologize if my last remark (regarding FDDI, Ford Festivas, and
>> using the right tool for the job) sounded snotty. I'm just trying to
>> stand up for my principles, that combined with the fact that I'm in a
>I agree; Ethernet is all well and good (cheap, etc) - but I doubt that too
>many people would call it "elegant". Now FDDI (and other token-based
>protocols) - I would call elegant. Especially when you want to do any
>kind of worst-case analysis for real time or other sensitive applications.
That certainly depends on your perception of elegance. I like the concept of
an "ether" which is shared amongst stations. Some might think that token-
passing mechanisms are overly involved. I simply say that one should use the
right tool for the right job.
>The ethernet story is amusing. Here's a protocol (based on ALOHA, which
>actually makes sense) that was initially bus-based that has since become
>more-or-less point-to-point, at MUCH higher speeds, and yet the underlying
>principles have never changed. So the whole point of ethernet has
>basically been nill'ed out by going to entirely switched networks.
I'm not that fond of the switching concept for that reason. It perverts the
original intentions of the architecture, in effect removing the common ether.
Still, I'm often dazzled by the thought that even in this day, we're using a
network architecture which was first devised in the mid-seventies. You can't
trace such a long mileage for much else in the computer world.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Life begins at '030. Fun begins at '040. Impotence begins at '86.
Received on Fri Jul 27 2001 - 05:47:06 BST