Alex, We used NCNIs and the V7.X switches to replace the FONBEs in our 4 existing Nodebus segments. Besides allowing us to install V7.X stations, this resulted in greatly reducing the traffic on our originally very heavily loaded single Nodebus system. Using an existing Nodebus segment to interface V8.X stations and any CP270s to the V6.X/V7.X DCS portion of our system is going to raise the Nodebus traffic impact on the Nodebus segment the ATS modules are installed in and could likely overload it - it is a big step backwards for us. If 5 Nodebus segments are allowed, I understand that I can buy another 1x8 and NCNIs, try to find enclosure space, run fiber to connect the NCNIs to the V7.X switches, and then install the ATSs to interface all the new V8.X stations and CPs to our system. However, it sure is a shame to have to revert to such means to do so - there will be more potential failure points, we are having to utilize older technology, it seems the 10 MegBAUD Nodebus in the 1x8 is going to slow down communications to remaining parts of our system (especially the V7.X stations), it will cost more, etc. It is a very big disappointment. Neil Martin, P.E. Huntsman Polymers Corporation 2505 South Grandview Odessa, TX. 79766 ph) 432-640-8436 pager)432-742-4289 email page)4327424289@xxxxxxxxxxxxx "Johnson, Alex P (IPS)" To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <alex.johnson@xxxxxx cc: vensys.com> Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions. Sent by: foxboro-bounce@freel ists.org 10/12/2005 02:01 PM Please respond to foxboro Re: The ideal solution for many of us that already have a 7.X/6.X mixed system is an ATS equivalent that can plug directly into the Foxboro V7.X fiber Ethernet switches that we have. There are no plans to build an ATS that plugs directly into the V7.x Ethernet switches. Is plugging it into a Nodebus a significant issue? Can you describe me the problems this causes you? Regards, Alex Johnson Invensys Systems, Inc. 10707 Haddington Houston, TX 77063 +1 713 722 2859 (voice) +1 713 932 0222 (fax) +1 713 722 2700 (switchboard) alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neil Martin Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:41 PM To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions. Alex, The ideal solution for many of us that already have a 7.X/6.X mixed system, is an ATS equivalent that can plug directly into the Foxboro V7.X fiber ethernet switches that we have. Is there any of hope of Foxboro developing this any time soon? Neil Martin, P.E. Huntsman Polymers Corporation 2505 South Grandview Odessa, TX. 79766 ph) 432-640-8436 pager)432-742-4289 email page)4327424289@xxxxxxxxxxxxx "Johnson, Alex P (IPS)" To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <alex.johnson@xxxxxx cc: vensys.com> Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions. Sent by: foxboro-bounce@freel ists.org 10/12/2005 01:28 PM Please respond to foxboro Re: I am interested to know if your example below is correct Yes. It is a legal configuration. The ATSs and NCNIs would be in one 1x8. The ATS and NCNI communicate over the 1x8's Nodebus cables. The NCNIs make the physical connection to the V7.x switches. The ATSs link the Nodebus equipment to the Mesh network. An ATS is required because the Mesh network does not have a 'A' and 'B' network and, therefore, requires different communications handling. There is a common misconception that an NCNI and an ATS are basically the same thing - this is incorrect. They are quite different. Does this help? Regards, Alex Johnson Invensys Systems, Inc. 10707 Haddington Houston, TX 77063 +1 713 722 2859 (voice) +1 713 932 0222 (fax) +1 713 722 2700 (switchboard) alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tom.vandewater@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 12:13 PM To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions. Alex, I am interested to know if your example below is correct or if you just forgot to remove the ATS on the NCNI segment that is above the segment where the other ATS is connected to the MESH. If the ATS in question is needed could you explain what function it serves? Thanks for any clarification you can offer. "Depending on your traffic levels this next configuration is actually better, but requires more 1x8s" V7.x AW | RCNI V6.x A | =20 __|____ NCNI ___ |S|____NCNI____________ATS | | |W| | | =20 CP CP |I| CP CP =20 |T| _____ |C|____NCNI____________ATS____|Mesh |-- AW/WP |H| |Ntwk |-- CP | |-- CP ----- Cheers, Tom VandeWater -----Original Message----- From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Johnson, Alex P (IPS) Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:40 AM To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions. The correct way to link V7.x and V6.x equipment - if there are fewer than 64 letterbugs in the combination - is something like this: V7.x AW | RCNI V6.x A | __|____ NCNI ___ SW____NCNI____________ | | | | CP CP CP CP I didn't try to show the redundancy, but there are actually 2 pairs of NCNIs, 2 switches, and 1 RCNI that connects to both switches. Building on this, to add V8 equipment one would: V7.x AW | RCNI V6.x A | ______ __|____ NCNI ___ SW____NCNI____________ATS_____| Mesh |-- AW/WP | | | | | Ntwk |-- CP CP CP CP CP | |-- CP ------ Again, I didn't try to show redundancy, but you would have 2 ATS modules and multiple switches. The CP and AW/WPs connect with separate Ethernet NICs. Depending on your traffic levels this next configuration is actually better, but requires more 1x8s V7.x AW | RCNI V6.x A | =20 __|____ NCNI ___ |S|____NCNI____________ATS | | |W| | | =20 CP CP |I| CP CP =20 |T| _____ |C|____NCNI____________ATS____|Mesh |-- AW/WP |H| |Ntwk |-- CP | |-- CP ----- If you have a bigger system with CBLANs installed, the configuration gets more complicated, but that's for another day. =20 =20 Regards, =20 Alex Johnson Invensys Systems, Inc. 10707 Haddington Houston, TX 77063 +1 713 722 2859 (voice) +1 713 932 0222 (fax) +1 713 722 2700 (switchboard) alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx =20 -----Original Message----- From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of stan Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:03 AM To: Foxboro List Subject: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions. I'm reposting this, as it went out just before huricane Rtia, and I suspect that a lot of people were a little busy to answer it :-) I've got 2 more questions related to future directions. 1. Given an existing "classic" nodebus node, and a V7 UNIX node with 2 boot hosts, is the ATS still the appropriate solution to share data (and potentially control) between these 2 & 1/2 :-) nodes? Given a system with 2 boot hosts, each of which has it's own "sub node", that is each cabinet (2 total) has redundant fiber nodebus switches, and CP's but that is all committed as one "node". Should we connect the 2 sets of switches with the gigabit uplinks, or should we just make 100M fiber connections between the 2 sets of switches? ASCII ART system architecture follows: +--------------+ +-----------------+ +--| A Switch +......................| A Switch |--+ | +--------------- +-----------------+ | | | | +--------------+ +-----------------+ | | | B Switch |......................| B Switch | | | +--------------+ +-----------------+ | | | | | | +---------------+ -----------------+ | +--| 1x8 with CP's | | 1x8 with CP's |--+ +---------------+ -----------------+ I've omitted the CP's connections to FBM's for clarity, and of course the Ix8's have NCNI's, and there are WP's and AW's connected to the switches. The dotted lines are the connections I'm asking about. Thanks for any input on this. --=20 U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror=20 - New York Times 9/3/1967 =20 =20 =20 _______________________________________________________________________ This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html =20 foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: = mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Djoin to unsubscribe: = mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dleave =20 =20 =20 _______________________________________________________________________ This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html =20 foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: = mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Djoin to unsubscribe: = mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dleave =20 _______________________________________________________________________ This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave _______________________________________________________________________ This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave _______________________________________________________________________ This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave _______________________________________________________________________ This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave _______________________________________________________________________ This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave