Re: Protocols over Frame Relay

Drew Daniel Perkins <ddp+@andrew.cmu.edu> Fri, 16 November 1990 04:50 UTC

Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16918; 15 Nov 90 23:50 EST
Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA10524> for frame-relay@nri.reston.va.us; Thu, 15 Nov 90 23:50:20 EST
Received: via switchmail; Thu, 15 Nov 90 23:50:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.gbEqVf600iU4A0RkcW>; Thu, 15 Nov 90 23:17:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr15/ddp/.Outgoing/QF.cbEqV4S00iU4E2Qkwe>; Thu, 15 Nov 90 23:17:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from Messages.7.8.N.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu.pmax.3 via MS.5.6.valkyries.andrew.cmu.edu.pmax_3; Thu, 15 Nov 90 23:17:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <YbEqV1600iU4I2QklA@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 23:17:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Drew Daniel Perkins <ddp+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: frame-relay@NRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: Protocols over Frame Relay
In-Reply-To: <9011152246.AA00540@petunia.network.com>
References: <9011152246.AA00540@petunia.network.com>

> Excerpts from mail: 15-Nov-90 Protocols over Frame Relay Joel
> Halpern@petunia.net (1433)

> One can use PPP and treat it as a collection of point-to-point
> links.  For now, that will work.  However, that is clearly not
> desirable in the long run.  We need a better solution.

Can you explain your reasoning behind this statement?  What is the issue
which makes PPP undesirable, and why can't it be solved within its
existing framework?

Drew