Cell Relay Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>List Archive>month:1997-Dec> msg00119



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Re: RFC 1483 vs. LANE bridging vs. PNNI

  • From: vhalkka@cc.helsinki.fi
  • Date: 17 Dec 1997 10:26:55 +0200

In article <34970712.7DCF@xedia.com>, Paul Koning  <pkoning@xedia.com> wrote:

>Anyway...
>
>I was referring to what you can do using standards.  Yes, I suppose
>you can run protocols other than IP over RFC 1483, but that would be
>proprietary (since no equivalent for RFC 1577 exists for any of the
>others
>that I know of.

RFC 1483 defines both 'routed' and 'bridged' encapsulation. I have used
both of them. It is a point-to-point link anyway... it is enough to
get the packets into the tube in a form which the other end can decode.

I used to have 'routed 1483' between routers, and 'bridged 1483' between
ATM-ethernet switches. All PVCs. And a dedicated FDDI ring between these two
worlds.. LANE did not exist.

VesA