Re: [foxboro] FW: FW: More future direction questions.
- From: Kevin FitzGerrell <fitzgerrell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:52:52 +1300 (NZDT)
Russ,
My intention is to connect my three v7.x/v6.5.x networks together with a small
V8.x node (AW, switches, 3 pair ATS). As I understand it I don't need to use
the ATS in pairs, however it's my understanding that I can, to preserve network
redundancy.
After merging the network, however, I plan on gradually bringing some of the
legacy segments off the V7 switches on to the V8 switches, replacing the NCNIs
with ATS. Other legacy segments will be eliminated as I upgrade existing CPs
and gateways to CP270s and FDSI FBMs. Currently, all of my legacy segments are
connected directly to a V7 switch with NCNIs. As I see it, I will use a pair of
ATS to replace a pair of NCNIs as I bring legacy segments onto the V8 switches.
Currently I'm not using any NCNIs as NBEs, nor am I using any NCNIs for the sole
purpose of directly connecting 51F/G or XP workstations.
Our V7 networks were only ever intended as a temporary solution to allow
elimination of some overloaded CLANs and unreliable FONBEs. All workstations
and switches were purchased with the assurance from Foxboro that they would be
supported at V8.
Regards,
Kevin FitzGerrell
Carter Holt Harvey, Ltd.
+64 27 460 9994
Quoting "Boulay, Russ" <russ.boulay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Kevin..
>
> Remember...the only time that an ATS for NCNI swapout occurs is to make
> a
> legacy node connection from an V8.x switch to a legacy node.
> So you need just 3 pair of ATS.
>
> ATS's do not swapout for NCNI's that are uses as Nodebus Extenders or
> to
> directly connect an 51G,F, or XP to a legacy node.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On
> Behalf Of Kevin FitzGerrell
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 6:22 PM
> To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: FW: More future direction questions.
>
> Corey,
>
> In your small system example, I can't see any reason not to do as
> you've
> described, subject to the Foxboro license/software costs of upgrading
> your
> V7.x
> boxes to V8.x boxes.
>
> I intend to work towards a system with ATS modules in all the legacy
> segments
> connecting directly to V8.x switches, but I'm looking at the scenarios
> discussed
> in the last couple days as a simpler first step.
>
> I've got 3 seperate networks with a total of 5 pairs of switches and
> about
> 17
> segments with NCNIs. My current plan is to put in a V8 host with three
> sets
> of
> gateway ATS modules to connect the three individual networks together.
> Then
> (as
> shut schedules permit) upgrade F and XP boxes to V8 (network cards,
> software,
> license), replace NCNIs with ATSs and bring the switches to V8. In
> conjunction
> with this we'll look at eliminating some segments by upgrading CPs and
> gateways
> to CP270s with FDSI FBMs.
>
> Some cost related concerns include:
> V7 -> V8 costs for an AW or WP, I understand this will require network
> card(s)
> upgrade, but I don't know how much the software/license cost will be.
> Given
> that the license costs much more than the hardware now, I expect I may
> be
> shocked at the price to bring my V7.x Solaris workstations to V8.x
>
> NCNI -> ATS -- I've been told there will be an advantage upgrade for
> CLAN
> and/or
> NCNI modules, but I don't know how much I will end up paying for an ATS
> module
> under this program.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kevin FitzGerrell
> Carter Holt Harvey, Ltd.
> +64 27 460 9994
>
>
> Quoting Corey R Clingo <clingoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > Put this guy on the Cassandra wiki [I am an I/A god because I made
> Alex
> > J.
> > say, "Truth is - I don't know. (Man, that hurts.)"] :-D
> >
> > Seriously, I thought I understood this, but the recent discussion has
> > left
> > me wondering. Say I have a system with two segments. Each segment has
>
> > some CPs, and some WPs and (on one segment) an AW (D/E vintage) that
> > connect into 1x8s with DNBTs. Each segment also has a pair of NCNIs
> that
> >
> > connect it to a V7 switch (a redundant pair, actually). The V7 switch
> > also
> > has an AW51G and a few WP51Fs, and an AW70/XP (I don't know what
> > P-number
> > that is), all running at version 7, connected with RCNIs. The CPs'
> host
> >
> > is the AW51G connected to the switch. These switches are some of the
> > ones
> > certified to work with V8.
> >
> >
> > Now let's say I want to go to version 8, when a V8 comes out that
> > supports
> > both Solaris and XP on the mesh side. Is it not "cleaner", and maybe
> > better from a traffic standpoint, to just replace the NCNIs with ATSs,
>
> > upgrade the V7 boxes' software to V8 (and ditch the RCNIs and install
>
> > redundant NICs), cross-connect the switches, and go on down the road,
> as
> >
> > opposed to buying new mesh switches and a new V8 host and hanging
> them
> > off
> > one of the existing segments?
> >
> >
> > Corey Clingo
> > BASF Corp.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Johnson, Alex P (IPS)" <alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 10/13/2005 02:13 PM
> > Please respond to foxboro
> >
> > To: foxboro
> > cc:
> > Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: FW: More future direction questions.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Re: If we already have 4 Nodebus segments connected with NCNIs to the
> > V7.X
> > switches, is adding a separate 1x8 loaded with NCNI's and ATSs to
> create
> > a
> > 5th Nodebus segment for interface to a new V8.X AW station and any
> > CP270s
> > that we add (or upgrade to) going to be a Foxboro supported option?
> > Stated
> > another way, when NCNIs and V7.X switches are used to interconnect
> the
> > segments, are 5 Nodebus segments allowed?
> >
> >
> > That's a really good question. One of the best I've had in weeks.
> >
> > For those that do not know, V7.0 systems allow five (5) control
> segments
> >
> > in
> > a Node. A control segment is one that has control stations in it. A
> > segment
> > with only WPs/AWs does not count as a control segment. WPs/AWs
> attached
> >
> > with
> > RCNIs do not count either.
> >
> > Version 7.1 bumped the limit to eight (8) control segments in Node.
> >
> > The limitation is imposed by our network fault detection software.
> >
> >
> > What Neil is asking is, "How does a large Mesh network impact this
> > limitation?"
> >
> > Truth is - I don't know. (Man, that hurts.)
> >
> >
> > I'll have to ask and get back to 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > 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
Other related posts:
