8 Jan
2013
8 Jan
'13
11:45 p.m.
On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:41, Ian McLaughlin <ian at platinum.net> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong (which is likely), but doesn't DECnet (at least the Cisco
variant) resolve routing ties between area routers by using the highest numbered one?
Maybe your area routers should be at the top end of the address range?
This Cisco document says "End systems send routing requests to a designated Level 1
router. The Level 1 router with the highest priority is elected to be the designated
router. If two routers have the same priority, the one with the larger node number
becomes the designated router. A router's priority can be manually configured to
force it to become the designated router."
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/internetworking/troubleshooting/guide/tr191…
(please excuse me if I'm totally off base)
My area routing is done via layer 2 VPN and a multinet tunnel meaning i'm using VMS,
all areas would be bridged to that one router via VPN or further tunnels. No cisco gear
involved so that's a non-issue as far as I can tell.
Ian
On 2013-01-08, at 2:26 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
Hello!
The current way I allocate node numbers is in sequential order and it's getting
tremendously messy and difficult to manage, so I am going to come up with a plan to divide
things more cleanly and I'm looking for feedback.
I'm thinking: 9.1-9.21 for administration/control purposes (area routers and so
forth), subdividing the area in to geographic areas (areas of ~250 each initially, the
others can be further subdivided as needed), and then subdividing those geographic regions
by purpose.
so:
(apologies about this chart being absolutely atrocious and useless, it functioned largely
as stress relief)
9.1-9.21
|
V relief
OHIO (9.22-9.271)-----|----------------|-------------------|
| | | | |
V V V V
V
(VMS) (PDP-11) (PDP-10) (OTHER) (WORKSTATION)
9. (22-.72) (73-123) (124-174) (175-225) (226-278)
And repeat for other regions.
Should I subdivide further?
What could I use instead of OTHER?
Should I break up the area differently?
Further suggestions?
Should I put physical hardware as a sub-sub-subdivision, its own tertiary level (in place
of OTHER), or not differentiate them at all?
Let me know your thoughts.
---
Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here