FTP is very well used for time sensitive documents as it can be set
up to deliver or receive documents virtually as rapidly as they can
be created. However, one must check to see if every byte is received.
In EDI structures, the ability to do this is built into the structure. In
transmission of non-structured data a sanity check must be invented -
or one assumes the risk of incomplete files. Full consideration of
issues in use of FTP sort of removes the concepts of "easy" or
"free" which is often used to describe FTP.
VANs certainly have their purpose, but being generally store-and-
forward by nature, they do introduce delays (usually small). If your
company has a very large number of trading partners, VANs can be
a burdensome expense. In a scenario involving relatively small
numbers of trading partners, or where special services are required,
they are great.
At 08:52 AM 2/4/00 -0500, you wrote:
>VANs prove more beneficial with criticial and time sensitive documents such
as invoices, POs.
>Catalogs and inventory reports which are in some cases very large in size
are best left to be transported via FTP. There are no VAN cost and the
documents are not affecting revenue directly.
>
>>>> Ian Verhaegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4:55:18 PM Thursday,
February 03, 2000 >>>
>I think that FTP works great on it's own. The major concern here are the
>'value adds' that you get from VAN's, such as the ability to have all of
>your data tracked and archived and have a secure connection through to your
>trading partner. Straight FTP forces you to give up those 'value adds'.
>
>There are products available and standards published to give you most of the
>'value adds' when you go direct across the Internet (FTP being one protocol)
>if you have concerns about those issues.
>
>Ian Verhaegen
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Fred Piaskowski (IT) [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
><mailto:[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]>
>Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 3:27 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: ftp Vs VANS
>
>I am seeking enlightenment about the value of using ftp versus a VAN to
>transmit X12/EDIFACT data. Or, should it be used as an adjunct, to VANS.
>That's probably what we would do anyway. It seems cost might be a factor.
>Anything else? Your input will be appreciated.
>Thanks in advance.
>
>=======================================================================
>To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
><http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/>
>
>=======================================================================
>To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
>
>To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
>
>
>
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
