Talk:Network topology: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Eric M Gearhart
(Moved everything over from "Network Topology" (articles longer than one word should be lowercase))
 
m (Text replacement - "locality of networks" to "locality of networks")
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{subpages}}
|                 abc = Topology, Network
 
|               cat1 = Computers
Need some ideas for more topologies? Think wireless: broadcast, multi-hop. [[User:Markus Baumeister|Markus Baumeister]] 15:17, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
|                cat2 =  
 
|                cat3 =
:Ugh I just need more time lol! --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 12:02, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
|          cat_check = y
 
|              status = 3
== Emphasis on topology vs. on failure/recovery modes ==
|        underlinked = y
 
|            cleanup = n
There are a number of topologies that apply when high availability is involved, not just in physical media such as SONET/SDH/NGN, but in things like the MPLS recovery framework (RFC3469 Framework for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)-based Recovery. V. Sharma, Ed., F. Hellstrand, Ed.. February 2003)
|                  by = --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 02:40, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 
}}
Some things to consider, with fault tolerant rings, are:
:*1+1 data flows concurrently on both rings, and the endpoint decides which to use
:*1:1 data flows on an active ring, but can fail over to a protection ring. The failover, incidentally, can be for less than the entire ring--a failing station or media segment can be bypassed
:*N:M there are N active rings protected by M backup rings, such that N>M
 
[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 12:39, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
 
:As usual Howard I end up learning more from your commentary than from attempting to write the article itself :) [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 20:22, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
 
::Not sure this is a topology issue, but, as you may notice, I've been some things that aren't quite top-down or bottom-up. For example, I started on building out some IPv6, spurred by my colleague TJ Evans, and realized that there needed to be some IPv4 background -- and, from that, I backed into [[Internet Protocol]] (neither 6 nor 4). In turn, that brought me, which is an aspect of topology at a different level than here, about how nonbroadcast multiaccess (usually but not always star) breaks a lot of protocols.
 
::A sinister force, I think, led me to start on locality of networks,. which is something of a sharing of thoughts rather than a formal article -- although I think it could go somewhere useful. This sort of writing is forcing me to try to recognize the truly fundamental (not necessarily obvious) concepts. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:28, 3 September 2008 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 08:21, 24 June 2024

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  Defines the method in which a computer network is architected; topologies can be either physical (meaning how the actual hardware is interconnected) or logical (meaning how that network is implemented by protocols in software) [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  Computers [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  British English

Need some ideas for more topologies? Think wireless: broadcast, multi-hop. Markus Baumeister 15:17, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Ugh I just need more time lol! --Eric M Gearhart 12:02, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Emphasis on topology vs. on failure/recovery modes

There are a number of topologies that apply when high availability is involved, not just in physical media such as SONET/SDH/NGN, but in things like the MPLS recovery framework (RFC3469 Framework for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)-based Recovery. V. Sharma, Ed., F. Hellstrand, Ed.. February 2003)

Some things to consider, with fault tolerant rings, are:

  • 1+1 data flows concurrently on both rings, and the endpoint decides which to use
  • 1:1 data flows on an active ring, but can fail over to a protection ring. The failover, incidentally, can be for less than the entire ring--a failing station or media segment can be bypassed
  • N:M there are N active rings protected by M backup rings, such that N>M

Howard C. Berkowitz 12:39, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

As usual Howard I end up learning more from your commentary than from attempting to write the article itself :) Eric M Gearhart 20:22, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
Not sure this is a topology issue, but, as you may notice, I've been some things that aren't quite top-down or bottom-up. For example, I started on building out some IPv6, spurred by my colleague TJ Evans, and realized that there needed to be some IPv4 background -- and, from that, I backed into Internet Protocol (neither 6 nor 4). In turn, that brought me, which is an aspect of topology at a different level than here, about how nonbroadcast multiaccess (usually but not always star) breaks a lot of protocols.
A sinister force, I think, led me to start on locality of networks,. which is something of a sharing of thoughts rather than a formal article -- although I think it could go somewhere useful. This sort of writing is forcing me to try to recognize the truly fundamental (not necessarily obvious) concepts. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:28, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Network_topology&oldid=959830"