Re: The fall of Bitnet

Thread View: list.future-l

1 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

1 total messages Started by Hank Nussbacher Tue, 27 Feb 1990 15:40

#10

Author: Hank Nussbacher
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1990 15:40

27 lines
1775 bytes

>Why is this a dilemma? Since NJE is an inferior protocol to TCP/IP
>and Bitnet will serve no function not served by the (soon-to-be-
>more-than-merely-logical) Edunet, what is there to mourn in "the
>fall of Bitnet"?
>
>Rick Kirkham

In addition to the comments people made to the benefits of NJE: the
Internet does not provide any store and forward capability.  The
physical topology fo the network is transparent to you but to the
designers it is not.  A host at one end wishing to communicate
(telnet, FTP, SMTP) to a host at the other end must sometimes
transverse dozens of telecommunications lines.  Yes, IP handles
alternate routing via IGRP or RIP but the farther one has to go the
higher the probability you will not succeed in getting through.

That is where NJE comes.  Since NJE is a store and forward network,
it is imprevious to "down" links.  The files/mail just keep moving
along - getting closer and closer until they get to their destination.
To say that "NJE is an inferior protocol to TCP/IP" is like saying that
oranges are a better fruit than apples. Each has its place and in my
opinion, one compliments the other.  I wouldn't be suprised that one
day NJE-IP will be a standard IP protocol right up there with NFS,
Telnet and FTP.

Hank Nussbacher
Israel

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads