Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!ingr!goodloe
From: goodloe@ingr.com (Tony Goodloe)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Request For Opinions: FDDI follow-up
Summary: three faults
Message-ID: <4985@ingr.com>
Date: 14 Apr 89 18:34:20 GMT
References: <4824@charon.unm.edu> <29505@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <1507@Portia.Stanford.EDU> <29548@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Lines: 19

In article <29548@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England)) writes:
> 	Now this is interesting.  This is the second person I've heard
> talk about optical bypass and FDDI.  I don't understand why you want
> or need optical bypass for FDDI.
> 
> 	With the dual counter-rotating ring you have the secondary
> ring in standby in case of node failure.
>
> 	Why do you want optical bypass fault tolerance as well?

With an optical bypass you won't need to do something as drastic as
wrapping the ring for something as minor as, say, a powered-down
station. Also, with bypass and wrapping you could sustain two faults,
for example, a dead node and a cable break, and still be operating
hunky-dory (sp?). We were asking ourselves this same question several
weeks ago, and have convinced myself that bypasses should be on all
stations. My $.02.

Tony Goodloe