NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/protocol/nfs/3217

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 1.9 KB

Xref: sparky comp.protocols.nfs:3217 comp.dcom.isdn:1241
Path: sparky!uunet!aria!marc
From: [e-mail] (Marco S Hyman)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs,comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Low cost ether/isdn brouters
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:15:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: comp.dcom.isdn
Distribution: na
Organization: Ascend Communications, Alameda, CA
Lines: 26

Note: nothing to do with comp.protocols.nfs -- followup-to comp.dcom.isdn.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Galloway) writes:
 > These two topcis are also realated.  If running completely seperate
 > B channels, then a user could leave one up all the time (and have a single
 > B chanles worth of resource on the host end dedicated to this user) but
 > only add the second on demand and thus have something like 1.25 B channels
 > for each user at the hub, and give 2 64K channels to most folks when
 > the need arises, but not have to have 2B channels dedicated to each user.

This can also be done using an Inverse Mux as the interface between your
router and wide area network.  Ours, for example, has a mode where a minimum
bandwidth, maximim bandwidth, increment amount, and decrement amount are are
specified.  The box looks at the ratio between flags/non-flags (or
mark/non-mark) to determine link utilization.  When the utilizaztion goes
above a target bandwidth is added, when below the target bandwidth is
reduced.  Experience shows its best to add channels in big chunks (4-6 at a
time) and remove them in little chunks (1-2 at a time).

The solution is a expensive (need router + IMUX), but available off the
shelf today.

// marc
--
// work: [e-mail]          uunet!aria!marc
// home: [e-mail]    pacbell!dumbcat!marc