Re: STP Vendors

Does anyone know why the US went with STPs instead of F links? Last I

You've got the question backwards; the network architecture originated in the US, and was adapted by the Europeans to more nearly approximate their hop-by-hop analog interoffice signaling.

F links are, in essence, wasteful; generally they lead to a significant surplus of signaling bandwidth at some points in the network and periodic deficits elsewhere. It is also somewhat easier to engineer a heavily redundant signaling architecture -- particularly in the tree-structured EO and tandem voice network US carriers inherited from Bell -- if you physically separate packet switching for the signaling links from the actual presence of voice trunk groups between switches.

Finally, it's noteworthy that other network protocol suites (e.g. IP, XNS, SNA) generally distinguish between the routing and end-host functions; certainly most stacks can do both, but a really high performance router, for most protocols, doesn't make a great end host, and vice versa. Why expect it to be different for SS7? You don't _need_ all the baggage of a voice switch along for the ride if your intent is to just forward signal units, and dispensing with it means reduced cost and size, which means you can have more message routers and more links on those routers, which means you can have a more redundant network.

Thor Lancelot Simon snipped-for-privacy@rek.tjls.com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky

Reply to
Thor Lancelot Simon
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.