Title: | DEChub/HUBwatch/PROBEwatch CONFERENCE |
Notice: | Firmware -2, Doc -3, Power -4, HW kits -5, firm load -6&7 |
Moderator: | NETCAD::COLELLA DT |
Created: | Wed Nov 13 1991 |
Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Number of topics: | 4455 |
Total number of notes: | 16761 |
Hi, I'm working on a configuration where a combination of 900FP and 90FS repeaters would appear to be ideal, I just want to check a couple of points :- The config I am looking at is :- Workgroup 1 --- 90FS ===Primary link ====== 900FP (in DEChub 900 with || | | bridge 900MX & || | | Concentrator 900MX) || | | || | |FDDI Ring || | | || | | ||===secondary link ===== 900FP (in second DEChub 900 with same config. as above) According to the 900FP manual the above looks fine, the plan would be to have about half a dozen similar workgroups connecting into the 900FP's in a similar manner to workgroup 1 shown above. My concern is with the repeater count if systems in workgroup 1 need to communicate with systems in workgroup x, in theory the path would be 90FS - 900FP - 90FS, a repeater hop count of 3. Is this still illegal ? If so, can I get around this by possibly using DECbridge 900's in place of 900FP's ? If so is the 900MP bridge the right option and does it support Fibre connections, and am I right in thinking that I would be losing full fault detection capability and having to settle for partial fault detection ? Thanks for your help, hope I've been clear enough ! Euan There will be a number of workgroups which
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1333.1 | the answer... | BRIEIS::BARKER_E | test dummy | Wed Aug 24 1994 05:03 | 15 |
Should've read the ethernet Notes file first, sorry, there's numerous dicussions there. Just for info, the config. I described is OK, the repeater rule is actually :- 5 segments maximum 4 repeaters maximum 3 co-ax segments maximum (out of 5 above, others can be Fibre or UTP) I guess the old 2 repeater limit came from the fact that we would have then had three coax segments in the old days, hitting the 3 coax segment limit, not the repeater limit. So, my config is OK, great ! Euan | |||||
1333.2 | No such thing as a half-repeater | MSE1::SUTTON | He roams the seas in freedom... | Wed Aug 24 1994 08:58 | 12 |
Just to flay this old horse again (I can never seem to get it buried): There never was a 2 repeater limit. The confusion came from referring to the two ends of a remote repeater link (two repeaters connected by a length of fiber optic cable) as a "repeater set" or "2 half-repeaters". The 5-4-3 rule was simply a means of clarifying what had always been the configuration rule from the beginning. Even now, though, some of the product documentation continues to refer to a two repeater limit....just another windmill to tilt at. /Harry |