From: jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen)
Subject: Re: FASTPAC and AARNET
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:27:25 GMT

gih900@sao.aarnet.edu.au writes:

>> I have heard that aarnet's projected growth is such that they (you?) are
>> looking at ways of increasing its capacity.  One possibility is to use
>> FASTPAC, but I believe the proposed tariffs make this appear
>> unattractive.

>On a point-to-point  basis the current offerings  are little different  from a
>Megalink circuit in terms of overall performance  (Fastpac-2  would be worse -
>Fastpac-10  slightly  better than a 2M ptp link) and the tariff levels  do not
>provide any real incentive to migrate to such a service offering.

It's good to see Geoff's analysis of this. I am really not that
surprised, as at the bottom Megalink and FASTPAC are/will be using the
same interstate transmission systems. 

>I'd note that my comments  above  are related  to Telecom's  marketing  of the
>technology  - not the technology  itself.   I've  never  been  convinced  that
>Telecom has a good understanding  of the emerging characteristics  of the data
>communications  market from a LAN perspective, and indeed AARNet itself can be
>interpreted as a somewhat eloquent expression of the fact that Telecom has not
>to date been able to come out with a market  offering  which really  addresses
>comms requirements  in terms of inter-LAN  connectivity  as a public switching
>environment  offerring  both VPNs and open switching  access  (but  if someone
>wants to debate the issue I'd gladly watch and add in my comments!).

This week's Computerworld has an article comparing prices for a notional
Syney/Paramatta/Melbourne network using FASTPAC 2 & 10 and Megalink. It
purports to show Fastpac as more cost-effective. I have my doubts, for
the very same reason Geoff states above.

>> The purpose of my message here is to present the technical
>> possibilities, and at least try and understand what the perceived
>> problems with using the FASTPAC service are.  I would also like to have
>> the chance to explain what the underlying QPSX technology supporting
>> FASTPAC can do, since FASTPAC uses only a restricted set of its full
>> functionality (for example, QPSX gear is cell based and already
>> supports integrated synchronous and packet switched service).  It is
>> also conceivable that QPSX gear could be provided to aarnet as a private
>> network.
>> 
>> I was told that this is the appropriate forum for discussing these kinds
>> of issues.  Hope that's the case.

>Certainly  I'm  interested  to take  you  up on  your  offer  to  explain  the
>underlying  QPSX technology  to this newsgroup (it'd make a welcome break from
>kre's initials!).

By all means, but as Geoff says, it is going to be tariffs (and performance)
which decide things. I appreciate Telecom's decision to flog QPSX capacity
through ethernet ports as a "LAN interconnect" product. Building 
packet-switched networks (from fixed synchronous building blocks) is always
an arbitrage process. Use of a public PSN is inevitably sub-optimal for large
organizations unless, like the banks with their ATM and EFTPOS networks,
you want to hit a lot of low-volume sites.

>From such a perspective  it must be noted  that  Fastpac  has to compete  with
>other existing and potential megabit transmissions  offerings  on the basis of
>its tariff and percieved reliability  of service.  From the _customer_ side of
>the router Fastpac is _invisible_!

Absolutely

>(My personal 2c to what could become a interesting thread)

But probably not, because the people who know what they are talking about
on this issue are in agreement anyway.


-- 
Jim Breen                           JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J
Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. 
PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 
(fax) +61 3 573 2345  AARNet/Internet:jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au  
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet,aus.comms