Re: [foxboro] Mesh Network Security (Again)
- From: "Johnson, Alex P \(IPS\)" <alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:16:50 -0400
It is a non-redundant architecture.
However, it's overall reliability is not much different that loading the
software directly on the AW and the isolation is much, much higher.
Regards,
=20
Alex Johnson
Invensys Systems, Inc.
10900 Equity Drive
Houston, TX 77041
713.329.8472 (voice)
713.329.1700 (fax)
713.329.1600 (switchboard)
alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Weiss, Andreas
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:17 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Mesh Network Security (Again)
> Mesh -> AW (51 or 70) -> FW -> AW (51 or 70) -> [FW] -> PIN -> PCs
>=3D20
Hi,
what is with redundancy or is it a single isolation station?
A single point of failure is good for debugging but bad for reliability.
Regards,
Andreas
=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:
