🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan6.184259.8546@ferrari.nmc.ed.ray.com>, smiles@NMC.ED.RAY.COM (Kevin Ruddy)
writes:

| We have an AGS+ at each of three of our facilities.  Each AGS+ has about
| eight to ten Ethernet interfaces.  Each facility is a different DECnet area,
| and the AGS+ at the facility is the DECnet area router.
| 
| At one of our facilities, we are running out of DECnet addresses.  We have
| already allocated 750 of 1000 addresses, and at the rate we're using them
| we'll have used them all by this June.  We will be forced to move to a
| second DECnet area before the 1993 is out.
| 
| The only way I know to implement this second DECnet area is by using a
| separate piece of equipment -- basically, a second AGS+.  We'd really rather
| not do this.

Why not have a VMS system at that facility act as an area router to the
new area (or have several, for redundancy's sake?)  We've done this in
similar situations here, with no observable negative consequences.  Some
traffic may take a suboptimal path, but we haven't seen any unseemly
performance.

| Can the existing AGS+ do anything regarding this second area?  Can it act as
| area router for two different areas?  Are these in the plans for future
| Cisco releases?

I doubt it.  DEC keeps claiming that DECnet Phase IV will be "desupported
real soon" - at DECUS last, I think I heard something about summer '94 -
so why would a third party vendor want to devote resources to enhancing
their Phase IV features?

Aaron

Aaron Leonard (AL104), <Leonard@Arizona.EDU>
University of Arizona Network Operations, Tucson AZ 85721