Newsgroups: bit.listserv.novell
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:09:58 EDT
Reply-To:     Novell LAN Interest Group <NOVELL@SUVM.BITNET>
From:         Mark Medici <medici@DORM.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Request for Views on Single Protocol BackBone

In bit.listserv.novell you write:

>  When I suggested the possibility
>of IPX on the backbone I was looked at as if I had two heads and
>practiced witchcraft.

> I am currently linking my distant Novell
>servers using the IPTUNNEL provided with NW 3.11 and although this works,
>is can be very slow, especially when our "single protocol" backbone
>doesn't work very well anyway. We have fibre between all our buildings and
>CISCO routers in all buildings that are set up to block all but TCP/IP
>from leaving the building. The link between our two campuses is a 2Mb
>microwave link which seems to be a major bottleneck between the two sides.

Cisco routers can very happilly handle muliple protocols.  We run a
wide variety of protocols over ours (IP, IPX and AppleTalk to name a
few).  There is no reason, other than blind desire to make one's work
as easy as possible, to restrict the backbone to a single protocol.
Yes, some learning curve will be required for each of the new
protocols, but consider the alternative: lack of connectivity.

>Back to the main reason for this message. I would like to hear the
>opinions of others in NetLand regarding the "single protocol backbone"
>policy, especially others in the educational sector. In particular, I
>would like to know what the policy is elsewhere and reasoning behind the
>policy. Do you agree with the official line and why (or why not)? What sort
>of equipment (and quantity) is used at your site and the layout of your
>network is also of interest.

Our network spans from one end of New Jersey (Newark) to the other
(Camden), with the majority of the network being located in central NJ
(Piscataway and New Brunswick).  Within a campus, the backbone is
primarilly Ethernet over fiber-optic, though there is a large segment
of broadband in Piscataway and some coaxial-based Ethernet is still
present.  T1 lines link geographicly separated campuses, and we have
links to The Internet via JVNCnet and Alternet.

We have a highly subnetted network.  No hosts are permitted to
directly connect to the primary backbone segments.  We encourage
departments to share subnets, but demand that public-access hosts
(e.g., machines in an environment that permits network access without
definitive user authentication) be on separate subnets than
private-access hosts (for security and accountability purposes).

We take the opposite approach from your organization.  We do NOT
permit tunnelling of any type on any of our network segments.
Tunnelling actually makes troubleshooting more difficult.  If a
problem occurs, you have to first troubleshoot the wrapper to see if
it's okay, then dig inside to troubleshoot the real packet.

Maintaining a single-protocol backbone may seem a good idea.  At first
glance it appears easier to maintain and troubleshoot.  However, if
maximum connectivity in an efficient manner is your goal, eventually
you come to realize that the single-protocol mandate is an obstacle.
--
_________________________________________________________________________
RUCS     | Mark A. Medici, Systems Programmer III, User Services Division
User     | Rutgers University Computing Services, New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Services | [medici@gandalf.rutgers.edu]                    [908-932-2412]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU