20 Jan
2016
20 Jan
'16
4:31 p.m.
On 2016-01-20 16:16, Dennis Boone wrote:
That means that we can eventually reduce the size of the bridge, when
people want to. It's not required. The size of the bridge have some
implicit problems. The number of routers on one ethernet segment is
limited in DECnet, as well as the number of nodes.
So, I'm sorry if that was read as dropping off the bridge was required.
It was meant as a possible later action with some good side effects. I'm
definitely not going to kick anyone off the bridge.
But, honestly, in some situations, the Multinet link might give better
performance, and in either case, the bridge cannot grow that much more
no matter what.
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
> I'll
point out that you specified you wanted to convert existing bridge
> connections, not just add redundant links.
Huh? Where did I say that??? I am in fact very
fond of redundant links.
You said:
but who would like to peer with me, and reduce the size of the
bridge?