From: Sean C (Upp_and_Upp@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 12 2005 - 11:27:22 GMT-3
Hi Jelle,
I appreciate the time you took at commenting on my post. I've understood
the bundle and virtual interface on the CPE. But who are you considering is
the 'other side' in your last comment "...and reconstructed in the correct
order on the other side."? Is the 'other side' the carrier? From what you
are suggesting in your last paragraph, the carrier does not advertise the
DLCIs on their physical circuits but only on their virtual interface? IOW -
the carrier not only has to configure the physical circuit but the carrier
also has to a virtual-interface on their equipment. To take this further,
since the carrier is utilizing a virtual-interface, the carrier would not
need to advertise all DLCIs on each circuit as I originally asked.
If my understanding is correct, pretty interesting. I appreciate the
answers,
Sean
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jelle Borsje" <borsjej@yahoo.dk>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Realworld use of Multilink Frame Relay
> Hi,
>
> When configuring this, a virtual interface is created
> on the router, called a bundle. The physical
> interfaces that make up for the bundle, are called
> bundle-links. The latter are invisible to the
> frame-relay data-link layer, and the frame-relay
> functionality is therefore not configured on the
> bundle-links (or physical interface) but on the bundle
> (the virtual interface).
>
> It appears that over the bundle-links, Link Integrity
> Protocol Control Messages are exchanged. LMI (and with
> that the advertisement of DLCIs) is configured on the
> virtual interface. LMI is up, and the connection
> active, as long as a single bundle-link is up and
> running.
>
> Since LMI is not running on the bundle-links (physical
> interfaces), the DLCIs are not advertised on the
> physical links... but only on the virtual interface.
> As far as your routing and connectivity is concerned,
> you only have to worry about the virtual interface.
> The FRF.16 standard will make sure that the packets
> are divided over the multiple bundle-links (physical
> interfaces) and reconstructed in the correct order on
> the other side.
>
> Hope this helps.
> Greetz
> Jelle
>
>
> --- Sean C <Upp_and_Upp@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> When implementing Multilink Frame Relay (FRF.16) -
>> I'm trying to understand
>> how the carrier advertises PVCs. My question is
>> this: does the carrier
>> advertise all PVCs on each T1?
>>
>> IOW - if an original implementation of FR had 2 T1s
>> with the 1st T1 utilizing
>> PVCs # 1, 2 & 3 and the 2nd T1 utilizing PVCs # 4, 5
>> & 6. If wishing to
>> utilize Multilink FR, does the carrier now need to
>> advertise all PVCs on both
>> T1s? IOW - will the 1st T1 now carry PVCs # 1, 2,
>> 3, 4, 5 & 6 and the 2nd T1
>> will carry the same PVCs #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6? It's
>> the only way I can see
>> this happening because I can't figure out if the 2nd
>> T1 fails, how the 1st T1
>> will be able to support PVCs 4, 5 & 6.
>>
>> I appreciate any answer supplied. I hope my
>> question is stated simply enough.
>> I had searched on CCO:
>>
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t
>> /122t8/ft_mfr.htm
>> and Googled some but have not found the appropriate
>> answer.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Sean
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 03 2005 - 07:54:56 GMT-3