RFC603 Response to RFC 597: Host status
0603 Response to RFC 597: Host status. J.D. Burchfiel. December 1973. (Format: TXT=1482 bytes) (Updates RFC0597) (Updated by RFC0613) (Status: UNKNOWN)
日本語訳
RFC一覧
参照
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 RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by Alex McKenzie with ]
[ support from GTE, formerly BBN Corp. 10/99 ]
Burchfiel [Page 1]
一覧
スポンサーリンク
