Cell Relay Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>List Archive>month:1999-Jun> msg00137



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

Re: FRF.8 Performance versus Frame Relay Versus Native ATM

  • From: Brad Reese <reese@alliancedatacom.com>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:46:43 -0500
  • Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
  • Organization: Cyberramp (using Airnews.net! at Internet America)
  • X-Orig-Message-ID: <37718E02.215D41CB@alliancedatacom.com>


Hi Chris,

You may wish to investigate Frame Relay to ATM Internetworking:

http://www.alliancedatacom.com/frame-relay-to-atm-internetworking.htm

Hope this helps.

Brad Reese
Alliance Datacom Frame Relay Resource Center
http://www.alliancedatacom.com/
11130 Petal Street, Suite 800
Dallas, Texas 75238
800-444-5851 Toll Free
214-503-7400 Office

GholamSlayer wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> I am faced with a decision on whether or not to deploy FRF.8 Interworking to
> tie remote frame relay capable sites to an ATM hub using Service
> Interworking.  Sprint is telling me that there are performance issues that
> make this solution unattractive.  I would be happy to go with pure Frame
> Relay, however, I need to support a 10Mbps transcontinental PVC, and I
> cannot seem to find a carrier that supports that speed.  Are there such
> performance issues?  Can a PVC scale beyond 6 Mbps from DC to LA without
> resorting to ATM?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Chris