| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 939.1 | Reliability Group! | NPSS::SOLOWAY | Stu Soloway 226-7651 | Tue Feb 25 1997 09:24 | 7 |
| You could set up both of those configurations. If one of the redundant
links failed the other one would take over without any new learning,
aging-out, or spanning tree learning/listening delays. The way it
works is that both links are made members of a single logical link, so
that from the point of view of spanning tree the failure of a single
physical link has no effect on the topology, as long as the other
physical link remains up.
|
| 939.2 | | NPSS::MDLYONS | Michael D. Lyons DTN 226-6943 | Tue Feb 25 1997 09:55 | 18 |
| Perhaps a slight clarification in terms - the reliability group is
set up similarly to hunt groups. When two ports are a member of a
reliability group, they lose their identity as physical bridge ports,
and the two ports form one "virtual" bridge port. Only one of the
physical ports is actually passing data.
Thus, for a reliability group containing ports 5 and 12, defined as
reliability group 42- 42:(5,12) Ports 5 and 12 do not exist as
spanning tree ports any more - only port 42 exists. The FGLs on which
the original ports 5 and 12 exist both have a copy of the same forwarding
database. The crossbar forwards frames to the active port, and does
not forward frames to the inactive port(s). The inactive port(s) do
not forward frames from the ring.
I believe the lower port number in the reliability group is
normally the active one.
MDL
|
| 939.3 | Yup. | NPSS::SOLOWAY | Stu Soloway 226-7651 | Tue Feb 25 1997 11:13 | 5 |
| Thanks for the clarification, Michael.
The only minor correction I'd add is that whichever port is on the ring
first is the active one. In the case of a tie (as judged by the SCP),
it's the lower one.
|
| 939.4 | How different it is from FDDI standby ? | GIDDAY::KULHALLI | | Tue Feb 25 1997 19:01 | 14 |
|
I am trying to understand what is the difference between reliability
groups and FDDI standby ( say 900EF whose A and B ports are connected to
two different M ports of two different FGL4 line cards of the same
Gigaswitch - with B to M being active and A to M in standby).
Failover in case of FDDI standby takes - up to 3 seconds ( I am be
wrong here ). Is there any improvement in failover time in case of
reliability groups.
thanks
/mohan
|
| 939.5 | | GIDDAY::KULHALLI | | Tue Feb 25 1997 19:06 | 10 |
|
By the way - do you have plans to update the Special Features Guide
with all these extra features in 3.1 and of course the 3.2 with IP
switching support. I belive the OBM guide may require update with
SNMP sets etc. WEB based documentation ( PDF and PS ) will be quite
useful to customers.
thanks
/mohan
|
| 939.6 | You don't have to relearn addresses | NPSS::SOLOWAY | Stu Soloway 226-7651 | Wed Feb 26 1997 09:05 | 5 |
| The difference is that with the FDDI standby scheme all the addresses
have to be re-learned by the GIGAswitch, a process that in some cases
could take many minutes. While this is going on, some addresses may be
unreachable and link throughput will suffer do to flooding of unlearned
destination addresses.
|