RE: DLSW encap

From: Jim Brown (Jim.Brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 16:24:03 GMT-3

• Next message: MADMAN: "Re: DLSW encap"
• Previous message: Barry Rowland: "Re: Telnet question"
• Maybe in reply to: Jon O'Nan: "DLSW encap"
• Next in thread: MADMAN: "Re: DLSW encap"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

   
Jon,

I would say TCP is more fault tolerant. TCP will route around a failure if
there is a topology change in the network. With direct, if there were a link
down, the session would be torn down.

Also TCP has built error checking and retransmission as part of the
protocol.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon O'Nan [mailto:jononan@columbus.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:21 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: DLSW encap

Is direct encapsulation considered more fault tolerant then tcp encap?

Thanks
Jon

• Next message: MADMAN: "Re: DLSW encap"
• Previous message: Barry Rowland: "Re: Telnet question"
• Maybe in reply to: Jon O'Nan: "DLSW encap"
• Next in thread: MADMAN: "Re: DLSW encap"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:25 GMT-3