The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

Cell Relay Retreat>List Archive>month:1995-May> msg00169



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Resilient ATM

  • From: "Gerhold, Mark L [TR]" <MLG2@trpo6.Tredydev.Unisys.com>
  • Date: Fri, 19 May 95 10:24:00 EDT
  • CC: "ip-atm @" <ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com>, "Erickson, Richard A [RV]" <rae1@PO5.RV.unisys.com>



>
>As I'm sure you are aware, the easy alternate is to put your two NICs
>two separate logical subnets and use IP routing to route around the
>problem.  Although OSPF hello and adjacency timeout intervals are
>typically set to converge in 45 seconds, you could set this to a much
>smaller value.  Of course, if you want millisecond cutover this won't
>work.
>
>Curtis
>

Curtis,

Yes, we are looking at using routing as one solution.  However,
as you undoubtably know, the are a couple of other weaknesses with
this:

First, not all endsystems have or want to have OSPF running on them.

Second, having the two NIC on separate logical subnets means that
most of the local traffic must now go through a router.  This
kind of defeats the expected cost and performance advantages of ATM.

Mark G.