Re: Single subnet
Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu> Mon, 21 May 1990 06:47 UTC
Received: from merit.edu by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20594; 21 May 90 2:47 EDT
Received: Mon, 21 May 90 01:47:15 EST from Pescadero.Stanford.EDU by merit.edu (5.59/1.6)
Received: by Pescadero.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03032; Sun, 20 May 90 23:47:01 PDT
Date: Sun, 20 May 1990 23:10:00 -0000
From: Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Single subnet
To: Dave Katz <katz@merit.edu>
Cc: fddi@merit.edu
Message-Id: <90/05/20
In-Reply-To: Dave Katz's message of Sun, 20 May 90 215123 EST
Status: O
In response to this comment of mine... > > (I suppose a fancy IS would load split across the two rings, so half > the packets would get through. Are the transport protocols expected > to cope with that?) Dave responded... > ... it's an issue for the forwarding engine, not the routing protocol > or the transport entity (just like IP). 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. Steve
- 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