Re: Less overhead dlsw lite Vs Direct ?

From: AK Singh (singh.anand@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Oct 25 2004 - 02:22:29 GMT-3

• Next message: Kian Wah, Lai: "RE: neigh with PREFIX-LIST and routemaps"
• Previous message: John Wong: "Re: Strange Serial problem"
• Maybe in reply to: Cisco Net: "Less overhead dlsw lite Vs Direct ?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

DLSW Lite has more overhead because it has LLC2 header also. Direct
encapsulation has least overhead but its not reliable like Lite and
TCP.

-AK

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:11:05 -0700, Cisco Net <network.cisco@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which one has less overhead
> Frame-Relay DLSW (dlsw lite) or Direct encapsulations ?
> Regards
> Cert
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

• Next message: Kian Wah, Lai: "RE: neigh with PREFIX-LIST and routemaps"
• Previous message: John Wong: "Re: Strange Serial problem"
• Maybe in reply to: Cisco Net: "Less overhead dlsw lite Vs Direct ?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 06 2004 - 17:11:52 GMT-3