Wirt,
Sorry we never met but in my previous "live" (or previous job), we
successfully used "routable afcp".
We previously replaced all our DTCs with 16RX and installed DTCMGR-UX on a
HP-UX server. At that time, we were using HP routers on which bridging was
extremely efficient and performant.
Then, our management decided we would change all our router to "another"
brand which was the "flavor of the day" ones. We were recommended some
cheaper models and installed them in many sites (over 30 sites). We then
started to have bridging problem.
At that point, I started looking at RAFCP and was given some info by
Response Center but was also told that further details would have to be done
through consulting...
We setup a "lab" network and tested with 2 dtcs and found it to be quite
reliable. So, something like 3 years ago, we started moving from "bridged"
to "routed". Inside 2 or 3 weeks, all sites were now "routed" and I would
say we never had any regret of doing this. According to users, it brought
performance back to what we had when using those old HP routers.
Over the time, we added a "spare" dtcmgr-ux software on a secondary server
and remote site for disaster recovery purpose.
Hope this helps.
--
==================================================
Denis St-Amand (Remove "removeit." from email address)
==================================================
"Wirt Atmar" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
news:9ks8gj02gl7@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Paul,
>
> > Has anyone connected some DTCs over a VPN? I have a request to find out
if
> > anyone is doing it successfully. They want to keep their several
hundred
> > terminals a while longer before the cost of upgrading to PCs.
>
> This is one of those things that should be perfectly well doable in
theory.
> It's just that you're never likely to have met anyone who's actually done
it.
> In my case, I've never met anyone who's ever even used routable DTCs.
> Nonetheless, that's the core of the trick.
>
> Once the DTCs can talk to one another over a TCP/IP connection, the VPN
won't
> make any difference. It should transfer the TCP/IP packets from one end to
> the other completely transparently.
>
> All in all, this becomes nothing more than a doubly wrapped package, where
> the VPN supplies the outer wrapper to the TCP packets, doing whatever it
> wants to do, while the routable DTCs earlier wrapped the Avesta packets in
a
> middle layer TCP packet.
>
> The wrappings should all come apart perfectly cleanly at their respective
> target ends, with the VPN taking off the first layer and the routable DTC
> taking off the second, leaving the core Avesta packet to be interpreted by
> the DTC.
>
> Wirt
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
