Re: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions.
- From: stan <stanb@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:31:16 -0400
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 02:28:37PM -0400, Johnson, Alex P (IPS) wrote:
> 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?
>
>
Yes thanks.
BTW I seem to have gotten good answers to the first question here. How
about the 2nd one?
--
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong
Terror
- New York Times 9/3/1967
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
