Re: FW: DECNet over IP?

[Jerry Scharf <scharf () vix com>]

> > Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:49:03 -0800 (PST)
> > From: "John K. Doyle, Jr." <John.Doyle () oracle com>
> >
> > Kevin,
> >
> > I'm surprised to see YOU (an old DECnet person :)) recommending this. You
> > know he's gonna die if he's running pipes larger than T1s. The
> > process-switching will eat him alive, no?
>
> You can do better than a T-1 with most routers, but I can't argue that
> it's efficient. If TGV was still around, I'd whole-heartedly recommend
> it.

What's the big deal. Put up a one interface box up that has only the job of doing DECnet encapsulation onto the tunnel. 
It will go as fast as it goes and who cares about the size of the pipes. No reason to mix this with the egress router 
for the network. It meets the stated design goal of providing transparent DECnet and will not impact anyone else should 
it run out of cycles.

I may draw some heat, but DECnet was built in the days of slow links and limiting an ethernet to a thousand DECnet 
packets per second (about what I would expect from a small cisco) won't get the users too unhappy. I don't know how 
fast a fast 7200 would do this, but I'd guess it could do a good deal better than that. How much the users want to pay 
sets the speed they want to go, sounds right to me.

jerry