[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
| Title: | DEChub/HUBwatch/PROBEwatch CONFERENCE |
| Notice: | Firmware -2, Doc -3, Power -4, HW kits -5, firm load -6&7 |
| Moderator: | NETCAD::COLELLA DT |
|
| Created: | Wed Nov 13 1991 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 4455 |
| Total number of notes: | 16761 |
260.0. "Config Rules: My Network config OK ???" by HGOVC::GUPTA () Fri Jun 04 1993 03:11
We are proposing the following network configuration to Shell Oil Hong Kong
where 3xDEChub90 will be connected to 2xUBhubs. Can anyone have a look at the
following configuration and suggest if there are any rule violations etc ? There
will one set of Server with Primary Link to DEChub #1 and secondary link to
UB#1 (connected to 90T and ASM 324). Another set of Server will have Primary
link to UBhub and secondary to DEChub in a Fault Tolerant configuration.
,----------------,
|3xASM 100 (T/S) | UB HUB #2
+----------------+
,-----|ASM500 (NETCARD)| LEGEND
| +----------------+
| |4xASM 310(UTP) | ------ PRIMARY LINK
| +----------------+ ...... BACKUP LINK
| |ASM 6300 (R/B) |----> (R/B)
| +----------------+
| |ASM 700 (SUP) |.................................................,
| `----------------' .
| (F/O CABLE) ,---------------, .
| ,---------------, | |..........'
| |4x90T (UTP) | DEC HUB ,--------|ASM 324T2 (UTP)|..........,
| +---------------+ #1 | +---------------+ .
| |90B (BRIDGE) |--------------' |2xASM100(T/S) | UB HUB .
| +---------------+ +---------------+ #1 .
`-----|90FL (FO/C) | ,----|ASM 700 (SUP) | .
,-----| | | +---------------+ .
| +---------------+ | |ASM 6300 (R/B) |--->T1 .
| |90T (UTP) |..........., | `---------------' .
| `---------------' . | .
| . | .
| . | .
| ,---------------, . | .
| |90B (BRIDGE) |...........' | .
| +---------------+ | .
| |4x90T (UTP) | DEC HUB #2 | .
| +---------------+ | .
| |90FA (FO REPTR)|------------------' .
| `---------------' .
| .
| ,---------------, .
| |90A (DECagent) | DEC HUB #3 .
| +---------------+ .
| |90B (BRIDGE) |..................................................'
| +---------------+
`-----|90FA (FO REPTR)|
+---------------+
|3x90T (UTP) |
`---------------'
As per information from Shell Oil/UB, ASM 500 is just a network interface card
which works with ASM 700 card and provide fault-tolerance.
Any help/feedback/improvements willbe highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Surender Gupta/Hong Kong Office
| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 260.1 | How about tying two hubs together? | EMDS::SEAVER | Bill Seaver, HUBwatch Mktg | Mon Jun 14 1993 02:02 | 3 |
| you could tie two of the three hubs together and eliminate a bridge if
they are close enough.
|
| 260.2 | Some guesses. | CGOS01::DMARLOWE | dsk dsk dsk (tsk tsk tsk) | Mon Jun 14 1993 16:18 | 25 |
| It looks like it could work depending on how the ASM 700 switch
links for redundancy. But there is a greater problem waiting to
happen and that has to do with address table space in the DECbridge
90.
The DECbridge 90 in Hub #1 sees the following ports:
DEChub #1 5 x 90T = 40 ports
DEChub #3 3 x 90T = 24 ports
UB Hub #2 4 x 12? = 48 ports
UB Hub #2 3 T/S = 3 addresses
UB Hub #3 2 T/S = 2 addresses
----------------
Total 117 addresses
If for some reason DEChub #2 gets added in due to alternate link switching
then you can add another 36 addresses for a total of 153 addresses seen by
the DB90 in hub #1. Still below the 200 but if some fault brings UB Hub #1
under the above DB90 then you may see 200+ addresses on that bridge. Not
knowning how the UB redundancy works, is there a better way to redo this
whole thing so there is less unknowns, especially if a path fails? Also do
the UB modules understand spanning tree or are you completely relying on
the DB90 to keep things straight?
dave
|
| 260.3 | One of the three DB90 HAS TO BE active | HGOVC::GUPTA | | Wed Jun 16 1993 10:43 | 34 |
| Thanks Dave for your input.
I understand that I am not very comfortable regarding 200 station
limitation. But I am planning for AT LEAST ONE DB90 to be active at any
given point of time. This is essential for all the HUBS (DEC & UB) to
be reachable all the time. The logical network topology attempts to
divide the network into two LAN segments connected by one DB90. At the
same time, the attempt is to provide at least one more redundent path
(repeater or DB 90) to each HUB (DEC & UB). With at least one active
DB90, I am likely to have around 110 addresses (as you have calculated)
which I thought was safe. With this requirement of one active and one
redundent path to each HUB, I could not think of any other way of
simplifying the network topology. Any bright ideas ?
As for the UB hubs, Shell (the customer) tells me that ASM 500 & 700
(UB HUB #2) are just network cards and are backup for each other. These
cards exchange control info on the internal control bus and in case
ASM500 goes down, ASM700 takes over.
There are NO bridges in UB hubs which will take part in the Spanning
Tree. Yes, I EXPECT and RELY COMPLETELY on DB90 to keep things
straight.
Hence, I will need your help in this configuration. Do you see any
problems with this configuration ? Any improvements ?
Thanks for your help.
Reply to .1 (Bill Seaver),
The two DEChubs cannot be tied together because they all
are on different floors.
Regards,
Surender
|
| 260.4 | Redraw. | CGOS01::DMARLOWE | dsk dsk dsk (tsk tsk tsk) | Thu Jun 17 1993 14:27 | 50 |
| What about....
| -----------------
| |DB90|90T| | |
|---| | | | DEChub | some sort of main backbone
| | | | |
| ----------------- +
| + + UTP interconnects
| +
| ----------------
| | |UTP| |
|----| | | |
| | | | |
| ----------------
| +
| +
| -----------------
| |DB90|90T| |
|---| | | | DEChub
| | | | |
| -----------------
|
|
| ----------------
| | |UTP| |
|----| | | | UBhub
| | | | |
| ----------------
| +
| +
| -----------------
| |DB90|90T| |
|---| | | | DEChub
| | | | |
| -----------------
|
In this case all DECbridge 90s will be in standby mode. Any failure of any
card or UTP link will cause one of the bridges to become active. You should
not have an address limitation problem because when a failure occurs, one
or more hubs will appear on the backbone side of the DECbridge and not
on the work group side.
Also I make sure the UTP interconnecting the hubs is not subject to
electrical noise. Keep the install as clean as possible.
Just a thought.
Dave
|