From: Nicolai Gersbo Solling (nicolai@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Mar 23 2002 - 12:51:25 GMT-3
Hi there Guys!
If I remember correctly it states somewhere on CCO that DLSW+ is especially
made to handle MTU size differences and Can(non-Can issues when going from
TR to Ethernet and Vice versa...
I think you can be pretty sure on the fact that you do not need to change
the frame size...
Nic
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Lupi, Guy
Sent: 23. marts 2002 14:51
To: 'Antonio Marfil'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: DLSW+ with TCP encapsulation - LF necessary?
I believe, and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, that it is
not required, because the ethernet router will fragment the packets as
necessary if they are larger than 1500 bytes. I believe that you use the lf
[frame size] if the fragmentation is causing a problem, but it is not
absolutely essential. Maybe someone with production dlsw experience could
tell us if using lf is a best practice, or if it is generally not required
when going from ethernet to token ring?
~-----Original Message-----
~From: Antonio Marfil [mailto:tony.marfil@networxcorp.com]
~Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 9:36 AM
~To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
~Subject: DLSW+ with TCP encapsulation - LF necessary?
~
~
~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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:19 GMT-3