15 Jan
2016
15 Jan
'16
4:15 a.m.
On 2016-01-15 04:11, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2016-01-15 04:05, Robert Armstrong wrote:
Oh, by the way. When we talk about the connection to area 59, the cost
of the current path is indeed 3. However, the cost of the link over
1.1023 is not known. The first hop is 3, yes. However, we also have the
cost added by the hop from 1.1023 to area 59, which is unknown to me. So
I probably need to add more than one to the link in order to get the
routing to choose 1.1023 as my next hop.
Johnny
What happens if you make the cost on the LEGATO
link 2 instead of 1?
The cost on my Multinet links are all set to 2. Since your current
LEGATO cost is 1, the total cost of that path to area 59 is 3. The
exactly equals the cost on you UNA circuit. In the case of a tie on
cost, DECnet picks the router with the lowest numerical address, hence
LEGATO wins.
But if you up the IP-0-0 cost to 2, the total would become 4 and the
UNA would win.
Yes, that would be correct.
I'm still trying to decide which link to prefer, though...
The problem is partly that this probably depends on how area 59 looks
inside, and which link 1.1023 is using. Am I mostly talking to nodes
close to the next hop from Legato, then the current setup is maybe best.
If I mostly talk to nodes close to the next hop from 1.1023, then it
makes sense to change this...
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Bob
On Jan 14, 2016 18:52, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
>
> Just FYI. It is slightly interesting and informing:
>
> 15-JAN-16 03:44:30 Node: MIM (1.13) "RSX system at Update, Sweden"
> RSX-11M-Plus, Area Routing Node, DECnet V4.6
> Area Circuit Hop/Cst Next Node Area Circuit Hop/Cst Next Node
> 2 IP-0-0 1/1 LEGATO( 2.1)
> 3 IP-0-0 2/3 LEGATO( 2.1)
> 7 UNA-0 2/7 SG1 (19.41)
> 8 UNA-0 1/3 GORVAX( 8.400)
> 12 UNA-0 2/13 ( 1.1023)
> 14 UNA-0 1/3 SKHNGW(14.4)
> 18 IP-0-0 2/3 LEGATO( 2.1)
> 19 UNA-0 1/3 SG1 (19.41)
> 22 UNA-0 2/23 HUB (42.1022)
> 23 UNA-0 2/13 ( 1.1023)
> 33 IP-0-0 2/3 LEGATO( 2.1)
> 39 IP-0-0 2/3 LEGATO( 2.1)
> 42 UNA-0 1/3 HUB (42.1022)
> 44 UNA-0 1/3 A44RTR(44.1023)
> 59 IP-0-0 2/3 LEGATO( 2.1)
> 61 UNA-0 2/23 HUB (42.1022)
> 62 UNA-0 1/3 CTAKAH(62.637)
> - Total areas: 17-
>
> Notice the number of areas that MIM now decided should go over IP-0-0,
> which is the link to LEGATO. Since I set the cost for that link to 1,
> while ethernet is at 3, it is rather favored. Not sure it really makes
> sense to route packets to area 59 that way, since going over ethernet, I
> would have a direct ptp to area 59 through a Cisco router sitting right
> next to MIM, but that then becomes a question of what the cost of the
> link between 1.1023 and area 59 is set to.
>
> Johnny
>
> --
> Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
> || on a psychedelic trip
> email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
> pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
>