Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!csn!boulder!recnews
From: shaffer@hamlet.ctd.anl.gov
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Routing brain-dead protocols
Message-ID: <9106201752.AA11225@hamlet.ctd.anl.gov>
Date: 20 Jun 91 17:52:08 GMT
Sender: news@colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 36
Return-Path: <cisco-request>

We have a large campus area network that has grown up as a bridged (YUK!)
1Mbit/sec. point to point ethernet. We are in the process of moving to an
FDDI routed network but the usual controversy over non-routable protocols
has arisen (you know the users who think that the local in local area
transport means anywhere you can drive to in an afternoon).

Soooo... we can...
1. Bridge the brain-dead protocols (there are several).
2. Buy a bunch of seperate protocol converters.
3. Give them their own bridged FDDI ring.
4. Let them continue to use the old bridged system(minimal support) while we
   move on.
5. Refuse to support them.
6. Go on a crusade to convert the heathens :-)

1&3&4 seem like a management nightmare. 2&3 are expensive. 4&5 have grave
political implications and 6 is not even worth considering.

At first glance it would seem that the ciscos could (with proper software)
encapsulate the non-routable protocol (NRP?) packets in IP but since
timing is critical (at least in LAT) that could be a problem.  Also I
don't see how this could be implemented in a generic way (i.e. user
discovers new wildcat protocol and configures cisco to encapsulate it).

So to the questions...

question for cisco...have you looked into the possibility of doing this
kind of thing? Is it possible/practical? How would you handle this situation?

Question for the rest of the world...Any advice on setting up and
administering mega-multiprotocol networks esp. with regard to the NRP?


				mike
			shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov
			Argonne National Laboritories