RE: FR Point-to-Point Sub-interfaces

From: Jim Schrader (jschrad1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Apr 18 2000 - 18:31:14 GMT-3

• Next message: Derek Small (Fuse): "Re: PIX vs. router with access lists"
• Previous message: Goh, Winston: "RE: How to filter NETBIOS in DLSW PEER"
• Maybe in reply to: Roger Wang: "FR Point-to-Point Sub-interfaces"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

   
If these sub-interface are on the same physical interface, then the answer
is yes they will need to each be a separate network. In a hub-n-spoke
config, it is common to configure a point-to-point sub-interface on the
spokes to simplify configuration. In this case, the same network is used on
each of the interface on the Frame Relay network.

If anyone is even a little bit confused about Frame Relay configuration, the
Caslow book has a very good section on it.

Jim Schrader

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Roger Wang
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 12:37 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: FR Point-to-Point Sub-interfaces

I know I'm missing something obvious, but I can't seem to figure out why
each FR point-to-point sub-interface must be on a different (sub)network?
The only thing I can think of is so that the router can route packets
between them, but I know I'm missing something more important. Can someone
please explain?

Thanks,

Rog

• Next message: Derek Small (Fuse): "Re: PIX vs. router with access lists"
• Previous message: Goh, Winston: "RE: How to filter NETBIOS in DLSW PEER"
• Maybe in reply to: Roger Wang: "FR Point-to-Point Sub-interfaces"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:23:14 GMT-3