From: Chris Lewis \(chrlewis\) (chrlewis@cisco.com)
Date: Sun Jun 26 2005 - 23:00:15 GMT-3
There are two cases, and it depends on whether you use direct or Lite
encapsulation. Direct encapsulation is unreliable, so you cannot
terminate the RIF, so that is required to be passed through the DLSw
connection, this is defined as part of the remote peer statement as
below:
Dlsw remote-peer 0 frame-relay ints0/0 100 pass-thru
Int s0/0
Frame-relay map dlsw 100
The advantage to this encapsulation is that it is fast switched, not
processs switched like TCP and has minimal overhead
The lite encapsulation is reliable and can terminate the RIF, and is
configured thus:
Dlsw remote-peer 0 frame-relay ints0/0 100
Int s0/0
Frame-relay llc2 100
To decide between these and other encapsulations, the wording could
specify minimal overhead, greatest throughput, local acknowledgement,
minimize keep alive traffic and so forth.
Pretty much all the questions you could have on this are answered at
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/idg4/nd2007.htm#xtocid3
3
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Lee Carter
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 8:18 PM
To: CCIE LAB
Subject: DLSW Direct Encapsulation - DLSW/LLC
All,
When doing DLSW over direct encapsulation
(frame-relay) link. When and why would you use DLSW or LLC as part of
your map statments?
Also, does the LMI type determine anyting with this?
Thanks,
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 14:43:44 GMT-3