Re: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions.
- From: <tom.vandewater@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:28:30 -0400
Thanks for the clarification Alex. I thought that ATS was a goof left
over from your preceding ASCI Art diagram, but sometimes my assumptions
have gotten me in trouble.
Neil Martin's question surrounds the fact that you not only need
a 1x8 cell bus but, two NCNI's to connect an ATS to an existing 7.x
switch. If the ATS had external connections via fiber or CAT 5 that
could connect to the 7.x switch directly, the NCNI's wouldn't be needed
at all. It seems their only function in the diagram below is as a media
converter from thin-net in the cellbus to MTRJ, (fiber), or
UTP,(CAT5/RJ45). Instead of passing the A & B enet connections out the
back of the ATS to the legacy equipment, you could pass out the front
and direct connect to the 7.x switches, eliminating the need for the
NCNI's altogether. However, you would still need the 1x8 to redundantly
power the ATS module and splitter combiners if you chose to use
redundant ATS's.
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 2:54 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions.
Oh, you mean the ATS that just dangles there? That's a goof. Sorry.
V7.x AW
|
RCNI
V6.x A | =20
__|____ NCNI ___ |S|____NCNI________
| | |W| | | =20
CP CP |I| CP CP =20
|T| _____
|C|____NCNI____________ATS____|Mesh |-- AW/WP
|H| |Ntwk |-- CP
| |-- CP
-----
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 Johnson, Alex P (IPS)
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:29 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] FW: More future direction questions.
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.=20
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,
=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 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 | =3D20
__|____ NCNI ___ |S|____NCNI____________ATS
| | |W| | | =3D20
CP CP |I| CP CP =3D20
|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 | =3D20
__|____ NCNI ___ |S|____NCNI____________ATS
| | |W| | | =3D20
CP CP |I| CP CP =3D20
|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.
=3D20
=3D20
Regards,
=3D20
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
=3D20
-----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.
--=3D20
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite
Vietcong Terror=3D20
- New York Times 9/3/1967
=3D20
=3D20
=3D20
_______________________________________________________________________
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
=3D20
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: =3D
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3D3Djoin
to unsubscribe: =3D
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3D3Dleave
=3D20
=3D20
=3D20
_______________________________________________________________________
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
=3D20
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: =3D
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3D3Djoin
to unsubscribe: =3D
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3D3Dleave
=3D20
=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
=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
Other related posts:
