Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048

To: Jim Howard <jimh@lyceum.com>
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048
From: Phillip Vandry <vandry@Mlink.NET>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:39:14 -0500 (EST)
cc: ascend-users@bungi.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:04:23 EST." <3.0.2.32.19980331120423.008feaf0@pop.lyceum.com>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

> At 09:18 1998/03/31 -0500, Phillip Vandry wrote:
> >> Why give more than 48 addresses. It only has 2 T-1's available so at a 
> >> max that's 48 connections.
> 
> >- If you have more addresses than channels, then even if all your
> >channels are constantly used, addresses get to have a little "rest"
> >between uses. This means that if the previous user logged off
> >uncleanly, possibly leaving some TCP connections open or otherwise
> 
> Does the system actually rotate through the pool like this?
> I had always assumed that it took the first available
> starting at lowest address and working up...

I never really looked at it, but I would hope that it is LRU.

Otherwise a simple circular sequential traversal is better than nothing.

-Phil
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

References:

Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048

From: Jim Howard <jimh@lyceum.com>

Prev by Date: RE: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048
Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048
Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048
Next by thread: RE: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread