| Title: | atm |
| Moderator: | NPSS::WATERS |
| Created: | Mon Oct 05 1992 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Jun 05 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 970 |
| Total number of notes: | 3630 |
I want to connect several truclusters using ATM. I am running dunix
3.2G with patches up to March. I am also using IP to currently
connect to other systems. If I install the atm controller on the
systems and the software that I assume comes with it will the IP
still work? Do I need atm LANE to connect to other systems.
Does using ATM have any effct on the application running? I wanted
to use the atm interface to transfer large amounts 120 to 180 GB
to other systems for backups.
I would assume that the systems will use atm between them and IP
for connections to othjer systems. How does the nsr application
using node names and ip addresses use the atm interface?
Thanks
Chuck
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 912.1 | IP over ATM | SMURF::GREBUS | DTN 381-1426 - Digital Unix | Fri Apr 18 1997 14:51 | 21 |
The normal way to use ATM is to run IP over it. In V3.2G there is only
one supported way to do that, Classical IP (RFC 1577). You can
configure one or more logical network interfaces over the physical ATM
adapter. Each interface should be in its own subnet.
If you want to force some IP traffic over ATM and some over the other
network interfaces on the systems, you will have to arrange for the
applications to use the appropriate IP addresses.
If some systems have only ATM, and some have only Ethernet (for
example), one of the systems with both interfaces will have to act as
an IP router.
I would be cautious about deploying a major use of ATM under
V3.2G. The code has not had nearly as much exposure as the V4.x code.
ATM is not supported on multi-processor systems in V3.2G. There has
also been much less interoperability testing donw with V3.2G. What ATM
switch are you planning to use?
/gary
| |||||
| 912.2 | Re: Dunix v3.2g and ATM. | QUABBI::"[email protected]" | Hal Murray | Sat Apr 19 1997 01:39 | 8 |
LANE is good because it will carry non-IP traffic and/or you don't need routers. One serious disadvantage of LANE when compared to classic-IP is the smaller MTU. http://src-www.pa.dec.com/~murray/an2-perf/tcpudp-mtu.html [posted by Notes-News gateway] | |||||