| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 635.1 | | LEVERS::ANIL | | Tue Jan 18 1994 22:00 | 9 |
| Yes, with the docking station, available at FCS of DB900MX, one of the
10BaseT ports will be switchable to the D/S's AUI via the setup menu.
(This should make it easy to replace DB620's with 900's, with
additional 10BaseT ports available.)
Protocol filtering for Enet types, SAPs and PIDs will allow restriction
of specified protocols to any set of bridge ports.
Anil
|
| 635.2 | more details about filtering | VNASWS::HONISCH | Guenter Honisch NSTC Austria | Wed Jan 19 1994 09:25 | 17 |
| What our Customers expect from Filtering:
"private LAN's" in a szenario like:
one group uses a IP net at ports 1-3
a second group uses a IP net at ports 4-6
these Groups are completely isolated from each other,
except for spanning Tree
So its actually a "AND" of Source and Destination Port with Prot. Type
GIGAswitch can do this, I hard a RETIX Brouter does it, but whats about
the lower End.
Even more perfect would be a solution where I can define bridged
Groups of Ports and route IP between those Groups in one BOX
(solves # of subnets problem in LAN's)
Guenter
|
| 635.3 | | QUIVER::SLAWRENCE | | Wed Jan 19 1994 12:12 | 13 |
| I'm trying to better understand the goals here... (feedback from the
field is great, but not if we misunderstand it).
If the two groups are _completely_ isolated from each other, what
difference does it make whether or not spanning tree is not, or whether
or not there is just one device acting in effect as two separate
bridges?
What is to be attached to each port in a group? Individual stations?
Other bridges/hubs? Repeaters?
Could you expand on what you mean by "solves # of subnets problem in
LAN's"?
|
| 635.4 | | SLINK::HOOD | I'd rather be surfing | Wed Jan 19 1994 13:24 | 3 |
| There are people trying to design these virtual LANs within a box now, but
there are no hub products that do this in the short-term (now or within the
next couple of months).
|
| 635.5 | | STRWRS::KOCH_P | It never hurts to ask... | Tue Jan 25 1994 12:36 | 2 |
| I assume from reading .1 that you use the DEHUA to make this a DEChub
ONE DECBridge 900MX, not the DEF1H. Am I correct?
|
| 635.6 | some clarifications | VNASWS::HONISCH | Guenter Honisch NSTC Austria | Tue Jan 25 1994 22:19 | 31 |
| Sorry, I was not in the Office to respond.
The Customer just wants to isolate groups from each other.
Spanning tree is just mentioned here because normally you can't filter
out spanning tree protocol. (or turn off Spanning Tree Entity)
There is no need for this function at this customer
About the # of subnets: if I have a collapsed Backbone Router, I need a
separate subnet for each attached LAN, so I need a lot of IP address
space plus address changes for relocating users over Boundaries.
Customers would prefer to have i.e. several Ports or Endstation
addresses bridged into one group and route only between those bridged
groups.
Somewhat like a Gigaswitch with a attached router in one affordable
Package...
In this case it does not matter how the users are attached, assume with
repeaters
BTW
What we really miss in our productset, is a way to transport those
workgroups across Hub boundaries without mixing them together at the
backbone (i.e. FDDI)
I saw a 3COM presentation about the same subject where they going to
use separate ATM PVC's to tunnel those groups over one fiber to a
Backbone Router.
But this deviates from the original Question about "port grouping"...
I did not want to start a rathole
Guenter
|
| 635.7 | | LEVERS::ANIL | | Fri Jan 28 1994 00:00 | 10 |
| > I assume from reading .1 that you use the DEHUA to make this a DEChub
> ONE DECBridge 900MX, not the DEF1H. Am I correct?
I'm not sure of the names.. if these are respectively the D/S with only
Ethernet AUI and the one with AUI as well as FDDI MOD/PMD capability
(currently under development), then the answer is either. The front panel
FDDI is a DAS MIC connector -- if this is suitable, it would obviously be
cheaper to go with the AUI one.
Anil
|