home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!ux1!news.byu.edu!eff!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!sparkyfs.erg.sri.com!csl.sri.com!dstine
- From: dstine@cisco.com (David Stine)
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
- Subject: Re: RTMP question
- Date: 15 Nov 1992 17:07:57 GMT
- Organization: cisco Systems, Menlo Park, California, USA
- Lines: 44
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <1e605dINN44o@roche.csl.sri.com>
- References: <don-131192134021@nocmac.cis.brown.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: regal.cisco.com
-
- In article <don-131192134021@nocmac.cis.brown.edu> don@bodovipa.cis.brown.edu (Donald Wright) writes:
- > If a FastPath (Gator box, whatever) happened to be busy doing file transfer
- > for instance, could this affect the rate at which RTMP updates are sent, or
- > is it completely timer driven and/or has priority to send its packets.
-
- I can't speak as to the internal design of FastPaths and Cayman routers, but
- in the internals of a cisco routers, I can say that this is possible.
- (if you get the router very busy with switching incoming traffic, the
- generation of _more_ traffic becomes a little difficult at times). It is less
- often seen in our routers, since we have alot more CPU horsepower to exhaust
- before you would see such a situation. But then there are usually 3 to 5 other
- protocols running at the same time as AppleTalk...
-
- It is also possible that collisions can take out RTMP update packets after
- they have been sent by the router. This is somewhat less likely.
-
- >My question comes up because if I sit at the console of the Novell print
- >server and watch the RTMP table, the next hop route to any given IP site is
- >doing a 'musical chair routine' among the 30 some FastPaths. Every 10
- >seconds or some the next hop changes nodes on the ethertalk segment!
-
- Well, this is something of an open area in the AppleTalk end-node design.
- Implementors who follow "Inside AppleTalk" to the letter will have their
- designated router possibly switch with every incoming RTMP packet. Please
- refer to pp. 5-18 and 5-19 in "Inside AppleTalk", 2nd. Ed.
-
- Some would say that this is a nuisance in AppleTalk, that it confuses the
- issue of trying to figure out where your traffic is going and why. These folks
- tend to come from the IP world, where you either tell a Unix host to
- (statically) designate a default route to a router for all traffic or you are
- running a routing protocol which tends to "lock on" to a path.
-
- So there are some AppleTalk end-node implementations which tend to stick with
- the first router they hear as the value for A-ROUTER until they quit hearing
- said router, at which time they pick another router on the cable.
-
- Then there is the flip side of the coin: by switching the value for A-ROUTER
- with every update, you effect a sort of "load sharing" between the routers
- present on a cable.
-
- Which is better? I'm sure we can find arguments in favor of both.
-
- dsa
-
-