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