Re: Protocols over Frame Relay

Philippe Prindeville <prindevi@inria.inria.fr> Tue, 20 November 1990 04:42 UTC

Received: from MCSUN.EU.NET by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07825; 19 Nov 90 23:42 EST
Received: by mcsun.EU.net with SMTP; Tue, 20 Nov 90 05:41:46 +0100
Received: by inria.inria.fr (5.65+/90.0.9) via Fnet-EUnet id AA24906; Tue, 20 Nov 90 01:41:00 +0100 (MET)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 01:41:00 +0100
From: Philippe Prindeville <prindevi@inria.inria.fr>
Message-Id: <9011200041.AA24906@inria.inria.fr>
To: tmallory@bbn.com
Subject: Re: Protocols over Frame Relay
Cc: frame-relay@NRI.Reston.VA.US

> 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.

In a point-to-point view, it might make sense to have each DLCI be
a virtual link, with an associated virtual interface, which would
have up/down indications based on the state info furnished by the
DCE.  But in a "cloud" (virtual private net, whatever) I would
rather depend on level 3 routing protocols, especially if (a) most
[if not all] of the connected systems are routers and (b) multicast
is provided by the carrier.

-Philip