| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2085.1 | | NETCAD::HERTZBERG | History: Love it or Leave it! | Wed Mar 15 1995 12:08 | 14 |
| The links on all our fiber repeaters are compliant with ANSI and ISO
industry standards FOIRL and 10BaseFL.
The redundant configuration, which we refer to as Dual-Port
Redundancy (DPR), is a Digital-unique feature not covered by any
industry standard (and is Patent Pending, by the way).
To get the maximum fault coverage, you need either a 900FP or a 90FS at
both the "master" and "slave" ends of the dual link. If you have a
900FP or a 90FS at the "master" end of the link and some other fiber
repeater (Ditigal or non-Digital) at the "slave" end, then the "slave"
is referred to as a "non-responder" and the configuration provides only
partial fault coverage.
|
| 2085.2 | 90FS connected to TWO 900FPs, will this work? | STRWRS::KOCH_P | It never hurts to ask... | Thu Oct 12 1995 17:00 | 7 |
|
This seems to be the note to ask this. I want to provide redundancy to
a multistack 90FS from TWO DIFFERENT 900FPs. If I hook it up this way,
will it work? Basically I want port 1 from each 900FP which are in
different closets to go to the same 90FS located in a closet which is
arrived at by diverse routing of the fiber from TWO different closets.
Will this work?
|
| 2085.3 | | NETCAD::HERTZBERG | History: Love it or Leave it! | Fri Oct 13 1995 09:41 | 10 |
| Yes, but you must make the 90FS in the multistack the DPR master,
because the master ports must be on the same module. The 900FPs would
have the slave responder ports, which do not have to be on the same
module (they should be on the same network segment, however).
Also, setting up DRP in the 90FS might require it to have its own IP
address... some of our firmware people can confirm or deny this.
Marc
|
| 2085.4 | | NETCAD::DRAGON | | Fri Oct 13 1995 10:05 | 8 |
|
>Also, setting up DRP in the 90FS might require it to have its own IP
>address...
This is the case via HUBwatch if the 90FS is not the multistack master,
which will have its own IP address by default.
Bob
|
| 2085.5 | | STRWRS::KOCH_P | It never hurts to ask... | Fri Oct 13 1995 14:14 | 4 |
|
What do you mean on the same network segment? Does that mean something
as simple as making sure that the 2 DECswitch 900EFs are on the same
LAN (broadcast domain?). Is there any kind of write-up on these rules?
|
| 2085.6 | | NETCAD::HERTZBERG | History: Love it or Leave it! | Mon Oct 16 1995 10:32 | 6 |
| By "on the same network segment," I mean on the same LAN.
Marc
P.S. Weren't we talking about PortSwitch 900FPs? When did DECswitch
900EFs get in this discussion?
|
| 2085.7 | | STRWRS::KOCH_P | It never hurts to ask... | Mon Oct 16 1995 11:20 | 6 |
|
Each PortSwitch 900FP will be on a different hub in different closets.
So, to put them on the same LAN, they'd have to be linked. I could link
them with Ethernet, but why not put a DECswitch 900EF in each hub and
link them via DECswitch 900EFs? That's how 900EFs got into the
discussion.
|
| 2085.8 | Must be on the same LAN segment? | SNOFS1::KHOOJEANNIE | Humpty Dumpty was pushed | Tue Oct 17 1995 02:38 | 8 |
| Re .6, do the two responders have to be on the same LAN segment because
they communicate with each other when there is a problem (i.e. for
fault detection in both directions)?
Similarly, if you are happy with partial fault detection (RX link to
master only), then can responders be on independent LAN segments?
Jeannie
|
| 2085.9 | | NETCAD::HERTZBERG | History: Love it or Leave it! | Tue Oct 17 1995 09:22 | 4 |
| No, the responders do not communicate with each other. The reason we
say they need to be on the same LAN is that otherwise, when the
primary link fails and the secondary takes over, you just rewired your
network.
|
| 2085.10 | | NPSS::WADE | Network Systems Support | Thu Mar 21 1996 09:08 | 4 |
| The responders need to be on the same LAN or extended LAN (which generally
refers to a LAN that has been extended with bridges).
bill
|