15 Jan
2016
15 Jan
'16
4:11 p.m.
On 2016-01-15 15:49, Robert Armstrong wrote:
If you want other examples when DECnet by design will not be able to
have symmetry, I can give you a shitload of them. :-)
Why don't you just accept that DECnet, by design, does things
asymmetrical. The symmetrical situation is rather a special case.
Yes, as I mentioned many mails ago, you hit this problem as soon as you
have more than one area router.
You also hit this problem within an area when you have endnodes that can
reach more than one router.
Are you advocating that we should just have one area router per area,
one level 1 router connected to any endnode, and just spray the place
with SPOFs? We could do that. But honestly, do you love symmetry so much
that it comes before anything else?
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
Let me give
you the same example I just gave Peter in a private mail.
The problem with your example is that you have one area (1 in your case) that has more
than one area router AND all of them have external links. Worse, some of those multiple
area routers for area 1 have links to the same external machine. The problem is just a
badly thought out network topology. If area 1 had only one gateway to the external world,
then all would be well.
Now you're going to tell me "yes, but I don't want to do it that
way". That's fine, but like I said - the problem isn't with the technology.