| Title: | GIGAswitch |
| Notice: | GIGAswitch/FDDI Jan 97 BL3.1 914.0 documentation 412.1 ion 412.1 |
| Moderator: | NPSS::MDLYONS |
| Created: | Wed Jul 29 1992 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 995 |
| Total number of notes: | 4519 |
Hi all,
I hope to have understood the new features of 3.1 (multiple spanning
tree and learning domains), but want to have our configuration
checked.
To implement high-secure computing in a BRS-cluster of our banking
customer, we would like to introduce a second, completely independent
FDDI-ring to doubleconnect all cluster members.
----------------------------------------------
FDDI-0 | | | | FDDI-0
----------- ------- ------- -----------
| DEcnet- | | | | | | DECnet- |
| Router | |node1| |node2| . . . . | Router |
| DECNIS | | | | | | DECNIS |
----------- ------- ------- -----------
FDDI-1 | | | | FDDI-1
----------------------------------------------
All systems (also the cluster nodes, the DECnet router in every
case) will have the same DECnet-PhaseIV address on both adapters.
Within every location, a single system will be connected with 2 x SAS
in the following way (with the option of dual homing for the
future with a DAS-port on the node)
Gigaswitch 1 Gigaswitch 2
-------------------- --------------------
FDDI-0 | learning and SPT ----- | learning and SPT | FDDI-0
---------| domain 1 |---|--------| domain 1 |-------
- - - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - - -
FDDI-1 | learning and SPT | | | learning and SPT | FDDI-1
---------| domain 2 |---|--------| domain 2 |
-------------------- | ---|----------------
| |
| |
| ------- |
SAS FDDI-0 ---| |--- SAS FDDI-1
|node |
| |
-------
Questions:
1.) Should I use 2 learning and 2 Spanning Tree-Domains, both
comprising the same group of physical ports ?
2.) With this configuration, will it never be possible to
bridge between these domains (as desired), provided
that config o.k. and no bridging enabled on the DECnet
router ?
3.) What is the preferred configuration tool ? I'm having
problems to compile MIBs with Manageworks (on Windows NT)
and a Polycenter Netview-Station cannot be moved very well.
I heard some rumours of Clearvisn 6.0, supporting multiple
spanning tree on the Gigaswitch ? Is this true ?
4.) Did I miss anything in the configuration above ? Any dangers ?
Any help will be highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Ralph
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 969.1 | NPSS::MDLYONS | Michael D. Lyons DTN 226-6943 | Wed Apr 16 1997 12:00 | 37 | |
> 1.) Should I use 2 learning and 2 Spanning Tree-Domains, both
> comprising the same group of physical ports ?
They aren't called spanning tree domains anymore, they're called
"logical bridge domains". Not knowing very much about the application,
it looks like a logical choice to me.
When you say "the same group of physical ports", I assume you mean
the same group of systems with different physical ports.
> 2.) With this configuration, will it never be possible to
> bridge between these domains (as desired), provided
> that config o.k. and no bridging enabled on the DECnet
> router ?
Never is a long time. The current firmware does not allow any
communication between logical bridge domains. There are no plans to
change this, but it could probably be done if there was a business
justification.
> 3.) What is the preferred configuration tool ? I'm having
> problems to compile MIBs with Manageworks (on Windows NT)
> and a Polycenter Netview-Station cannot be moved very well.
> I heard some rumours of Clearvisn 6.0, supporting multiple
> spanning tree on the Gigaswitch ? Is this true ?
Most customers using the more complex features of the
GIGAswitch/FDDI system use a combination of MultiChassis Manager and
their favorite SNMP manager.
You will generally find more information about MultiChassis Manager
in the KALI::HUB_MGNT notes conference.
The version I am using (6.0a) looks like it supports logical bridge
domains.
MDL
| |||||
| 969.2 | UTOPIE::BRAUN_R | Thu Apr 17 1997 03:25 | 42 | ||
Thanks for your reply!
>> 1.) Should I use 2 learning and 2 Spanning Tree-Domains, both
>> comprising the same group of physical ports ?
> They aren't called spanning tree domains anymore, they're called
> "logical bridge domains". Not knowing very much about the application,
> it looks like a logical choice to me.
> When you say "the same group of physical ports", I assume you mean
> the same group of systems with different physical ports.
I mean the Gigaswitch-ports. E.g. Logical Bridge Domain1 and Learning
Domain 1 should consist of ports 2.1 - 5.4 and Logical Bridge Domain 2
and Learning Domain2 8.1 - 13.4.
All VMS-cluster nodes will be SAS-connected with FDDI-0 to one group
and with FDDI-1 to the other group. Failover is via SCA failover in
VMS (which works very well), but we also have the option of dual
homing with DAS stations for the future (if the customer is willing to
pay the extra money)
>> 2.) With this configuration, will it never be possible to
>> bridge between these domains (as desired), provided
>> that config o.k. and no bridging enabled on the DECnet
>> router ?
> Never is a long time. The current firmware does not allow any
> communication between logical bridge domains. There are no plans to
> change this, but it could probably be done if there was a business
Probably a misunderstooding. That's exactly, what we want: never never
ever ever to bridge between these groups!
Thanks,
Ralph
| |||||