[35731] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FW: DECNet over IP?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin Oberman)
Thu Mar 15 10:42:41 2001
Message-Id: <200103151529.f2FFTcs32310@ptavv.es.net>
To: "John K. Doyle, Jr." <John.Doyle@oracle.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:49:03 PST."
<Pine.GSO.4.21.0103141547410.25855-100000@moonbabe>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:29:38 -0800
From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:49:03 -0800 (PST)
> From: "John K. Doyle, Jr." <John.Doyle@oracle.com>
>
> Kevin,
>
> I'm surprised to see YOU (an old DECnet person :)) recommending this. You
> know he's gonna die if he's running pipes larger than T1s. The
> process-switching will eat him alive, no?
You can do better than a T-1 with most routers, but I can't argue that
it's efficient. If TGV was still around, I'd whole-heartedly recommend
it.
I should have looked at the current offering from Process. I see that
the current version does support DECnet over IP. But even though
MultiNet was VERY well written in this area, it is still limited
bandwidth. It's just that the bottlenecks are at the end systems and
not at the routers. But this is definitely a better way to go.
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
