Conference netcad::hub_mgnt

    This is more a function of the DECswitch than the DEChub.  And no,
    it's not possible to do this now.
    
    Are Virtual LAN scenarios being required by more customers these
    days or is it just a coincidence that two requests showed up in as
    many days?  If other field folks have come across such requests as
    well, please send me the requirement and why it's done that way.  This
    will help us evaluate the need for software-upgrading the DECswitch
    family to support this type of functionality, and also to design it in
    a way that will address as many of these requirements as possible
    for future products.
    
    Anil

    Anil,
    
    Yes indeed, "virtual lan" is what many customers want today. Recently, we
    lost two projects (against ALANTEC) because we do not provide this
    feature (routing) within our DECswitch900 products.One of the two
    projects was based on a GigaSwitch FDDI/DEChub900.
    
    By the way there seems to be many differents ways to describe this
    "virtual lan concept"...routing, filtering at bridge level, channels 
    assignements...Well is there one standard definition...?
    
    Is ALANTEC a tough competitor in US...? they won twice in a two months
    period here in Geneva...do we have some good arguments to beat them..?
    
    Thanks for your help.
    Robert.
    
    Thanks 

>>  By the way there seems to be many differents ways to describe this
>>  "virtual lan concept"...routing, filtering at bridge level, channels 
>>  assignements...Well is there one standard definition...?

    No.  Every time you pick up a different newsletter/magazine, or talk to
    a different person, you get a different answer.

    Robert:

    If routing is what your customers are looking for, then that is
    indeed an ongoing project and should ship on the DECswitch 900EF and EE
    sometime this year -- for exact dates talk to the product managers as
    usual (DELNI::DHILLA for routing on these 2 products).  The protocols
    routed will probably include TCP/IP, IPX, AppleTalk, DECnet and OSI.  The
    upgrade will come with a cost ($ as well as performance).

    Virtual LANs are a different issue.  There have been numerous
    articles about this in the networking trade press over the last several
    months.  Although there is no standard definition of VLANs,
    in general what it means is the ability to aggregate user groups and/or
    separate them, via a software tool - rather than by restringing cables.
    So, instead of building a LAN physically, you build it virtually, with
    similar properties.  (To an extent, the DEChub 900's "backplane LANs"
    give you a low-level virtual LAN capability.)

    To different people it means different things: some people
    believe that these separate "domains" gives them independance from
    other groups by isolating traffic, thus limiting multicasts in their
    domain as well as overall traffic thereby increasing bandwidth; others
    see a security advantage; yet others want this because it 
    allows them to reconfigure the network sitting at a management station,
    rather than make a trip to the wiring closet or by recabling.  Today,
    most think of VLANs at the MAC level, but it's a step ahead of bridge
    filtering primarily because of its power, flexibility and ease of use.
    
    Anil
    
    ps: I haven't been able to keep up with this conference and reply only
    when directed to it; please send mail unless others would also benefit
    from seeing the note.