[HECnet] Network topology according to MIM.

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-01-15 15:49, Robert Armstrong wrote:
>> Let me give you the same example I just gave Peter in a private mail.
>
>    The problem with your example is that you have one area (1 in your case) that has more than one area router AND all of them have external links.  Worse, some of those multiple area routers for area 1 have links to the same external machine.  The problem is just a badly thought out network topology.  If area 1 had only one gateway to the external world, then all would be well.
>
>    Now you're going to tell me "yes, but I don't want to do it that way".  That's fine, but like I said - the problem isn't with the technology.

If you want other examples when DECnet by design will not be able to 
have symmetry, I can give you a shitload of them. :-)

Why don't you just accept that DECnet, by design, does things 
asymmetrical. The symmetrical situation is rather a special case.

Yes, as I mentioned many mails ago, you hit this problem as soon as you 
have more than one area router.

You also hit this problem within an area when you have endnodes that can 
reach more than one router.

Are you advocating that we should just have one area router per area, 
one level 1 router connected to any endnode, and just spray the place 
with SPOFs? We could do that. But honestly, do you love symmetry so much 
that it comes before anything else?

	Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol