From: Larry Metzger (larrymetzger@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Tue Jul 20 2004 - 23:06:49 GMT-3
The amount of overhead, transport, acknowledgements, and the type of end
stations make the difference. Less overhead as you go from 1 to 4.
Only TCP and Lite allow for Ethernet connected end devices (FST and
Direct allow for Token Ring only). Lite is for Frame Relay only. TCP &
Lite are reliable with local Ack.
CCIE Practical Studies Volume I by Solie has good information in Chapter
13.
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Kenneth Wygand
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:57 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: DLSW & Frame Maps
I'm a little confused on the different DLSW encapsulations and can't
find any solid information in the Doc CD. The GS archives have
conflicting information.
It appears that the following types of DLSW encapsulation exist:
1) TCP
2) FST
3) Direct
4) DLSW Lite
The first, TCP, is obviously TCP based, can be mapped with IP (F/R or
ISDN) and matched through TCP port 2065 or 1981 - 1983 if "priority" is
configured.
The second, FST, is IP based but is "lighter" than TCP. I'm not sure if
IP or DLSW needs to be mapped for F/R and ISDN.
The third, Direct, is not IP-based. I believe this is mapped with
"DLSW".
The fourth, DLSW Lite, seems to be the same as Direct, but implemented
on LLC2 interfaces (Frame Relay?). This is mapped with "LLC2".
Can someone please confirm my assumptions and/or point me to a resource
that concisely addresses these concerns?
Thanks!
Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:12:00 GMT-3