| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2263.1 | | NETCAD::HERTZBERG | History: Love it or Leave it! | Wed May 10 1995 10:32 | 5 |
| The 90TS is the same as the 900TM.
The 900TP and 900CP will be limited to four addresses per port when
they ship. This limitation is part hardware, part firmware. What is
software? ;^)
|
| 2263.2 | I little more clairification, please | CX3MAN::AMBER | Mark Amber, CNS-West (DTN)592-4645 | Wed May 10 1995 11:04 | 17 |
| >> The 90TS is the same as the 900TM.
So by this do you mean "two addresses"?
As long as phase-IV decnet stays around, this basically means "one
node" per port, right? (hardware address for boot and physical address
once up and running)
>> The 900TP and 900CP will be limited to four addresses per port when
>> they ship. This limitation is part hardware, part firmware.
Well, thats an improvement, but 8 or 16 would seem more practical.
Any chance at all that a future firmare upgrade could increase this limit?
>> What is software? ;^)
HubWatch. I thought perhaps the limitation _may_ be in Hubwatch
itself, and the the repeater itself. I guess not.
|
| 2263.3 | | NETCAD::HERTZBERG | History: Love it or Leave it! | Wed May 10 1995 11:31 | 17 |
| >> So by this do you mean "two addresses"?
Yes. And your understanding of one node per port is correct.
>> Well, thats an improvement, but 8 or 16 would seem more practical.
>> Any chance at all that a future firmare upgrade could increase this
>> limit?
The portswitch products are based on repeater ASICs which contain
security address hardware for 16 addresses per group of four ports.
This is a hardware limitation. The first release of firmware, for
simplicity, allocated the available address pool as a fixed four
addresses per port. This should give you an idea of what is
theoretically possible in future firmware releases... a fixed eight or
sixteen addresses per port is not among the possible.
Marc
|