From: Scott F. Robohn (sfr@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Mar 22 2000 - 19:40:57 GMT-3
Kevin,
The other (theoretical) advantage of CLIP over LANE is that
CLIP allows a very large MTU, up to just under 64kbytes,
while LANE limits you to about 18k.
A disadvantage of CLIP compared to LANE is that it doesn't
support L3 broadcast or multicasts.
Here are some comparisons:
'Broadcast Domain' (subnet boundary)
- In LANE, it's called an ELAN
- In CLIP, it's called a Logical IP Subnet (LIS)
Address Resolution Service
- In LANE, it's the LES
- In CLIP, it's the ATMARP Server
Broadcast Service
- In LANE, it's the BUS
- There is no broadcast service in CLIP
Configuration Service
- In LANE, it's the LECS
- There is no configuration service in CLIP
L3 Protocol Support
- LANE: Many - IP, IPX, AppleTalk, etc.
- CLIP: IP only - that's why it's CLIP, not CLIPX, CLAT, etc
;)
Future Work
- LANE: LANE Version 2.0 defines service redundancy and
specifies a special broadcast service
- CLIP: Don't hold your breath for new developments. The
original version is RFC1577 and has been updated by RFC2225,
but I don't sense that vendors are rushing to implement it.
BTW, Cisco offers a proprietary approach to CLIP ATMARP
Server redundancy, but it's not well-documented and I
understand it isn't officially supported.
HTH,
Scott
Greg Schmitt wrote:
>
> Kevin,
>
> The way I've seen CLIP used is between two or three routers across an ATM
> cloud. The plus side of CLIP is that you don't need PVC's, and it is much
> less trouble to setup than LANE. The down side is that it only works with
> IP.
>
> The Cisco CD has pretty good explanations about it, along with some
> examples. Caslow's book also does a good description of it, and you can
> compare it with LANE from his descriptions too.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg Schmitt
>
> Internetwork Solutions Engineer
> Total Network Solutions, Inc.
>
> Voice: 410-349-9772
> Cell: 443-822-5182
> Pager: 888-773-0423 or pager.gschmitt@tns-inc.com
> e-mail: GSchmitt@tns-inc.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Kevin Gannon
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 4:04 PM
> To: Ccielab@Groupstudy.Com
> Subject: ATM and Classical IP ?
>
> Can someone please expalin what is to be gained by using classical IP. It is
> intended for
> use by end stations (PC's) rather than routers. Is it like a predecessor to
> LANE to allow
> it to be easily used by end stations in that they can treat the ATM cloud as
> a ethernet
> segment ?
>
> Regards,
> Kevin
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:23:06 GMT-3