Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!UTADNX.CC.UTEXAS.EDU!ccaw001 From: ccaw001@UTADNX.CC.UTEXAS.EDU ("Rick Watson") Newsgroups: comp.os.vms Subject: DECnet redundant routes Message-ID: <8712241008.AA03757@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 23 Dec 87 19:37:00 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: "Rick Watson" Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 32 To all DECnet gurus: Is the following topology legal? A:: B:: +----+ +----+ | |--dmr----------dmr--| | +----+ +----+ | | ---------ether------------------------ The reason for this topology is that the ethernet is more than 1 physical segment, connected via level-2 bridges running over a long phone circuit. The dmr circuit would be used as a backup in case the ether-ether bridge failed. I know that redundant circuits are normally supported by DECnet, but I am not sure about the above case. The reason for the question is that after configuring the above topology, we started seeing high levels of kernel/interrupt activity which was (apparently) stopped by turning off the dmr circuit. An additional note: A:: and B:: are area routers in different areas. Rick Watson Computation Center University of Texas at Austin watson@utadnx.cc.utexas.edu watson@utadnx.bitnet utspan::utadnx::watson (SPAN) ------