From: simon hart (simon.hart@btinternet.com)
Date: Mon Mar 07 2005 - 15:29:46 GMT-3
I would suggest that this means to minimize the overhead on the WAN link,
therefore tcp would not be the choice. I really do not think such a
question would relate to local acknowledgment (however I understand your
question as it can seem a little ambiguous)
Therefore you would look for either FST (36bytes), Direct encapsulation
(16bytes) or LLC2 (DLSWlite)(20bytes) so as to provide the lowest overhead
on the WAN.
The problem, however, with FST and Direct Encapsulation is that the under
certain IOS they will only support Token Ring (Karl Solie actually states
that they will only ever support Token Ring).
So in summary I would go for
1. DLSWlite for low overhead
If you want non-disruptive re-routing then TCP
Just my two penny worth
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
ccie2be
Sent: 07 March 2005 17:47
To: Group Study
Subject: Eliminating "unnecessary overhead"
Hi guys,
With dlsw, if you're told to reduce or eliminate or minimize "unnecessary
overhead", what does that refer to?
To me, that can mean 2 different things:
1) use a encap type that does local acknowledgement which keeps those types
of frames off the wan
2) or use an encap type that has the smallest headers
Option 1 allows tcp or dlsw lite, while option 2 allows everything except
tcp depending on the topology.
I'd appreciate hearing what you all think.
TIA, Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 17:56:42 GMT-3