Protocols over Frame Relay

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

>You ought to be able to negotiate a low rate of LQM traffic per link, if that
>is your only problem.  Or skip it, since LQM is negotiable.  You can just
>trust that the FR DCE will supply you with correct up/down indications for
>each PVC.  Note that routers typically have a higher layer protocol that
>ensures connectivity for routing purposes in any case.

    I don't want to assign an IP subnet per "virtual point-to-point" link.
    And the unnumbered point-to-point concept does not work for routing
    protocols that don't support it. I believe from a router standpoint,
    viewing the network as an multi-access network is the most flexible
    and pure PPP does not fit that model.

>I'll give in a little for limited multicast, where a well-known logical
>address is used to locate service that may be provided by several servers and
>also for duplication as a special service(for conferencing, for example), but
>the general case is clearly best suited to LAN's where everyone listens to the
>same bits.

    I agree that limited multicast capability is the best, but I believe
    that the Frame Relay offerings I'm aware of will not support this.
    Furthermore, if the FR network does not perform mulitcasting 
    efficiently, DTEs will have to use alternative methods.

Dino