RFC603 - Response to RFC597: Host status

时间:2005-02-11 来源: 作者: 点击:
Network Working Group J.D. Burchfiel RFC# 603 BBN-TENEX NIC # 21022 31 December, 1973 Response to RFC# 597: Host Status I have several questions about the November 1973 ARPANET topographical map: 1. AMES is 4-connected, i.e. four network connections
  Network Working Group J.D. Burchfiel
RFC# 603 BBN-TENEX
NIC # 21022 31 December, 1973

Response to RFC# 597: Host Status

I have several questions about the November 1973 ARPANET
topographical map:

1. AMES is 4-connected, i.e. four network connections will go down
if the IMP fails. Is there some aspiration that IMPs should be
no more than three connected?

2. The seven IMPS in the Washington area are arranged into a loop.
This guarantees that local communication can take place even if
one connection fails, and is probably a worthwhile preparation
for area routing. On the other hand, for example, a break
between MIT-IPC and MIT-MAC will require them to communicate
through a 12-hop path through Washington. This can be remedied
by a short (inexpensive) connection between Harvard and Lincoln
Labs. Is there a plan to pull the Boston area, the San
Francisco area, and the Los Angeles area into loops like the
Washington area?

[ This RFCwas put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFCarchives by Alex McKenzie with ]
[ support from GTE, formerly BBN Corp. 10/99 ]
------分隔线----------------------------
顶一下
(0)
0%
踩一下
(0)
0%
------分隔线----------------------------
最新评论 查看所有评论
发表评论 查看所有评论
请自觉遵守互联网相关的政策法规,严禁发布色情、暴力、反动的言论。
评价:
表情:
用户名: 密码: 验证码:
推荐内容