Comments on ''The QPSX MAN' (with authors' reply)

For original article see ibid., vol.26, no.4, p.20 (1988). The commenter contends that the authors of the above-mentioned article miscompare dual bus and dual ring topologies. He addresses what he believes should be the main point of interest to the telephone companies when they are assured that QPS...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:IEEE communications magazine 1988-11, Vol.26 (11), p.9
Main Authors: Rocher, E.Y., Newman, R.M., Budrikis, Z.L., Hullett, J.L.
Format: Magazinearticle
Language:English
Subjects:
FDDI
Government
Laboratories
Monitoring
Optical receivers
Optical transmitters
Propagation delay
Protocols
Research and development
Switching systems
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:For original article see ibid., vol.26, no.4, p.20 (1988). The commenter contends that the authors of the above-mentioned article miscompare dual bus and dual ring topologies. He addresses what he believes should be the main point of interest to the telephone companies when they are assured that QPSX will measure up to the public network requirements, namely, reliability and maintainability. He uses QPSX and FDDI to compare dual bus/dual ring reliability, showing that QPSX is less reliable. The original authors refute Dr. Rocher's comments regarding the reliability of QPSX, and they emphasize that the numerous other advantages of QPSX listed in their article stand undiminished.< >
ISSN:0163-6804
1558-1896
DOI:10.1109/35.9124