DLSW+ with TCP encapsulation - LF necessary?

From: Antonio Marfil (tony.marfil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Mar 23 2002 - 11:36:09 GMT-3

• Next message: Lupi, Guy: "RE: DLSW+ with TCP encapsulation - LF necessary?"
• Previous message: Nelson Salvatorelli: "RE: Affects of Redistribution on Tags"
• Next in thread: Lupi, Guy: "RE: DLSW+ with TCP encapsulation - LF necessary?"
• Maybe reply: Lupi, Guy: "RE: DLSW+ with TCP encapsulation - LF necessary?"
• Maybe reply: Nicolai Gersbo Solling: "RE: DLSW+ with TCP encapsulation - LF necessary?"
• Maybe reply: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi: "Re: DLSW+ with TCP encapsulation - LF necessary?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

   
When using tcp encapsulation between DLSW peers, one Token Ring, the other
Ethernet, is it necessary to use the lf (largest frame size) command to
limit Token ring frames to 1500? Or is this handled automatically?

Thanks.

Regards,
Tony

• Next message: Lupi, Guy: "RE: DLSW+ with TCP encapsulation - LF necessary?"
• Previous message: Nelson Salvatorelli: "RE: Affects of Redistribution on Tags"
• Next in thread: Lupi, Guy: "RE: DLSW+ with TCP encapsulation - LF necessary?"
• Maybe reply: Lupi, Guy: "RE: DLSW+ with TCP encapsulation - LF necessary?"
• Maybe reply: Nicolai Gersbo Solling: "RE: DLSW+ with TCP encapsulation - LF necessary?"
• Maybe reply: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi: "Re: DLSW+ with TCP encapsulation - LF necessary?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:19 GMT-3