| Title: | DEC Network Integration Server (DECNIS) |
| Notice: | Please read note 1 to use this conference effectively |
| Moderator: | MARVIN::WELCH |
| Created: | Wed Sep 18 1991 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Jun 05 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 3660 |
| Total number of notes: | 15082 |
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3547.1 | Frame Relay. RFC1490 is on the way | MARVIN::MCCLURE | Tony McClure, DECnis Engineering RE02 FD9 7830-3564 | Tue Feb 18 1997 09:36 | 76 |
| 3547.2 | 32 PVCs is not enough | IB002::PLATAS | Tue Feb 18 1997 13:08 | 35 | |
Dear Tony,
Fist of all thanks a lot for your quick answer.
Regarding your comments:
In my opinion I think only 32 PVC for a 2 Mbytes line is a very
important limitation. Consider that 128-256 SVCs are supported under
X.25 links which normally are not intended to work over more than 64 Kbps.
At least in Spain, it is very common to contact Frame Realy PVCs of 16
Kbps.
In our particular case, that is the project we are working in Spain, it
should be enough to split the 80 remote connections between two serial
lines (due to performance and also for redundancy).
But using the DECnis we need three lines and what it is worst,
we cannot setup a line as a backup for the other lines, because
every physical line only supports 32 PVCs.
Therefore, if it is not planned to increase the number of PVCs
supported by physical line, in our project we will have to replace
two DECnis, which are already installed, by CISCOs.
Sincerely,
Jose Luis Platas.
pd.: By the way, according to your reply I guess that overhead of 1 means
the most efficient ?.
| |||||
| 3547.3 | good luck - you'll need it | MARVIN::RIGBY | No such thing as an alpha beta | Tue Feb 18 1997 14:09 | 12 |
We are not going to increase the number of PVCs supported on each line to more than 32 so for this network you will have to use some other router. Good luck getting the network to be usable with that many PVCs on a link and even more luck will be required to get the fail-over situation to be viable. It could even be better to have no service at all for half the users than a completely useless service for all the users. I would strongly recommend using prioritisation and per-PVC flow control in this sort of situation. You'll need to use the very latest cisco release as cisco admit that fair-queueing over FR doesn't work in IOS V11.2 John | |||||
| 3547.4 | Have you considered RouteAbout?. | mgb.rkg.dec.com::GILLOTT | Mark Gillott, 831-3172 (rkg) | Wed Feb 19 1997 11:47 | 6 |
Had you considered RouteAbout Central as an alternative to DECNIS?. Not quite sure of your requirements, but since you seem to be using RA's for the "back end router", why not look at RA Central for the "front end"?. Mark | |||||
| 3547.5 | IB002::PLATAS | Thu Feb 20 1997 06:43 | 12 | ||