Re: Two more DECnet questions

Rick Watson <> Fri, 21 August 1992 23:15 UTC

Received: from by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08896; 21 Aug 92 19:15 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id ab08892; 21 Aug 92 19:15 EDT
Received: from by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19264; 21 Aug 92 19:16 EDT
Received: by; id AA11326; Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:13:58 -0700
Received: by; id AA01658; Fri, 21 Aug 92 15:34:05 -0700
Received: by; id AA01653; Fri, 21 Aug 92 15:34:04 -0700
Received: by; id AA09270; Fri, 21 Aug 92 15:34:03 -0700
Received: by; Fri, 21 Aug 92 15:34:03 -0700
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 15:34:03 -0700
From: Rick Watson <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: Two more DECnet questions

>    Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 12:56:51 PDT
>    From: (Art Berggreen)
>    If an implementation maintains multiple equal-cost routes to a node (L1)
>    or an area (L2), the current MIB definitions only allows one of those
>    routes to appear in the relevant tables.  Is this a problem?
> I suspect that DEC didn't want to put that in because that is part of
> DECnet Phase IV+, for which the specifications have never been
> released for internal (political? manpower? willpower?) reasons.
> Putting it in the MIB would further increase the embarrasment that the
> DEC has two versions of DECnet, one they publish (Phase IV), one they
> use (Phase IV+).  (Shades of "see figure one"...)
> Phase IV+ is not very common outside of DEC implmentations, and I
> guess one would just export the "first" route.
>    Now that Token Ring (and FDDI?) encapsulation and usage is defined, should
>    all references to Ethernet be generalized to LAN?
> The token ring encapsulation adds more to the protocol than would be
> supported by the current MIB.  We should leave that for the future.
> I suppose FDDI should be allowed.  While that spec is not published,
> either, it's awful obvious: the way it comes out of a Ethernet/FDDI
> bridge.
>    Art

Cisco implements the equal-cost routes part of Phase IV+.

Rick Watson
Cisco Systems