Mark Crispin (MRC@SIMTEL20.ARPA)
Fri 4 Apr 86 01:42:47-MST
I'm sort of annoyed by the style of replies which include the
message being replied to in the reply. It gets rather tedious quite
quickly. Can we all make an effort not to do this? It's much better
to write a reply that makes the context of the message obvious than
to write one that has 5 or 6 new text lines in a 100+ line message...
I've complained about the Milnet/ARPANET performance for over a
year now. In the SF Bay Area the local ARPANET TAC is 300 baud only,
so most of us haven't even bothered getting an ARPANET TAC ID. This
is alright since there are lots of ARPANET hosts (Stanford, SRI)
around here for ARPANET access. But the SRI Milnet TAC is the only one
with dialups, and it gets heavy usage. If the TAC is busy or in
catatonic mode (a distressingly common occurance) I find myself cut off
from Milnet. It has been impossible to do serious heavy-duty editing,
real-time debugging, or any of the other software development tasks I
do here if I have to go through the Milnet/ARPANET gateways, and it's
been that way for over a year.
I'll grant that Telnet between ARPANET and Milnet is an abuse of
the gateways, but given the totally inadequate Milnet access around
here the choices narrow down to that or being cut off. Actually there
isn't a choice now; if the Milnet TAC is down we are effectively cut
off from Milnet.
I question the wisdom of maintaining the Milnet and ARPANET as
discreet networks. From what I can tell the perceived need for the
split has evaporated. There must be a lot of unnecessary trunk
duplication, not to mention all that gateway traffic which would go
away if we rejoined Milnet and ARPANET into a single net. How about
-- Mark -- trying to do production work on two production nets, neither
of which are producing very good results...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:36:05 GMT