Re: Single subnet
Dave Katz <katz@merit.edu> Mon, 21 May 1990 13:53 UTC
Received: from merit.edu by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23914; 21 May 90 9:53 EDT
Received: Mon, 21 May 90 08:52:40 EST by merit.edu (5.59/1.6)
Date: Mon, 21 May 1990 08:52:40 -0500
From: Dave Katz <katz@merit.edu>
Message-Id: <9005211352.AA08847@merit.edu>
To: deering@pescadero.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Single subnet
Cc: fddi@merit.edu
Status: O
>Sorry, I wasn't very clear. If a load-splitting forwarding algorithm >(which is suggested, but not required, by the IS-IS spec) is causing half >of the packets to disappear into a black hole, a transport protocol such >as TP-4 *might* be able to compensate (depending on the particular loss >pattern), albeit with a severe degradation of performance. Obviously, >it would be better for the routing/forwarding algorithm to avoid such >a failure mode, than to rely on the transport layer to survive it. Ah, now I see what you mean. Actually, I misspoke--the maintenance of equal-cost paths by IS-IS takes place even for the last hop (IS to ES), since the SPF algorithm runs based on adjacencies (of which there would be two for dual-MAC systems on an unwrapped ring). I was confused by OSPF and dual IS-IS, which route to subnets rather than hosts (and last hop routing is done by ARP, etc., rather than the IGP). This whole mess gets a little clearer every day...(and a little scarier).
- Single subnet Dave Katz
- Re: Single subnet Steve Deering
- Re: Single subnet Dave Katz
- Re: Single subnet Steve Deering
- Re: Single subnet Vernon Schryver
- Re: Single subnet Steve Deering
- Re: Single subnet Dave Katz
- Re: Single subnet Vernon Schryver
- Re: Single subnet Steve Deering
- Re: Single subnet Dave Katz
- Re: Single subnet Dave Katz