Traditional FRTS vs. MQS

From: blodwick (blodwick@columbus.rr.com)
Date: Sat Nov 19 2005 - 01:26:32 GMT-3

• Next message: Schulz, Dave: "RE: Jan 1, 2006 alot goes away, but what gets added?"
• Previous message: Dick Crittenden: "Re:pimv2 standards based approach"
• Next in thread: Chris Lewis: "Re: Traditional FRTS vs. MQS"
• Maybe reply: Chris Lewis: "Re: Traditional FRTS vs. MQS"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

It appears to me that there is nothing within the configuration of
traditional Frame Relay Traffic Shaping that cannot be accomplished via
MQS method. Has anyone looked into this in any detail? As far as what
Ive seen MQS provides all the functionality of FRTS and more.

~Brian L.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/175 - Release Date:
11/18/2005

• Next message: Schulz, Dave: "RE: Jan 1, 2006 alot goes away, but what gets added?"
• Previous message: Dick Crittenden: "Re:pimv2 standards based approach"
• Next in thread: Chris Lewis: "Re: Traditional FRTS vs. MQS"
• Maybe reply: Chris Lewis: "Re: Traditional FRTS vs. MQS"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 09:12:07 GMT-3