From: Tom Martin (tig@wiltecinc.com)
Date: Tue Jul 20 2004 - 23:08:59 GMT-3
Ken,
With FST all traffic is sent directly encapsulated in IP, so map IP for Frame and ISDN. You are correct on all of the others.
For what it's worth, the difference between direct encapsulation over Frame Relay and DLSw Lite is that DLSw Lite performs local acknowledgement and uses the "llc2" mapping instead of "dlsw" that is used by Frame Relay direct encapsulation.
-- Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Kenneth Wygand
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 8:57 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: DLSW & Frame Maps
I'm a little confused on the different DLSW encapsulations and can't find any solid information in the Doc CD. The GS archives have conflicting information.
It appears that the following types of DLSW encapsulation exist:
1) TCP
2) FST
3) Direct
4) DLSW Lite
The first, TCP, is obviously TCP based, can be mapped with IP (F/R or ISDN) and matched through TCP port 2065 or 1981 - 1983 if "priority" is configured.
The second, FST, is IP based but is "lighter" than TCP. I'm not sure if IP or DLSW needs to be mapped for F/R and ISDN.
The third, Direct, is not IP-based. I believe this is mapped with "DLSW".
The fourth, DLSW Lite, seems to be the same as Direct, but implemented on LLC2 interfaces (Frame Relay?). This is mapped with "LLC2".
Can someone please confirm my assumptions and/or point me to a resource that concisely addresses these concerns?
Thanks!
Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:12:00 GMT-3