>Hi,
>
>Frame relay and ATM do use different technologies. Different
>switches. Differnet ways data is put on a link. Different framing.
>
>Teunis
>Hobart, Tasmania
>Australia
Frame relay was specifically defined as part of ATM, as a low- to
medium-speed data access servers. Most WAN switches do both.
I will admit that it's hard to make a direct comparison between the
ATM cell layer and frame relay, but there certainly is comparability
between AAL and frame. Frame relay to ATM interworking is well
defined.
Of course, the circle closes as frame relay fragmentation chops up
frames to give latency characteristics more like ATM.
>
>
>On Thursday, March 01, 2001 at 08:43:19 AM, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >Why ATM can go upto 10 Gbps whereas Frame-relay upto
>> >45 Mbps only?
>>
>> There isn't market demand to do so, so carriers don't offer it.
>> There is no inherent reason why it can't, but I would tend to
>> say that the demand for frame relay aggregate bandwidth is being
>> outstripped by MPLS demands.
>>
>> At the US Y2K information center, we had OC-3 interfaces to the
>> routers, the ATM PVCs on which included 15 Mbps pipes to the hosting
>> centers, and dozens of channels which started as frame relay but were
>> mapped to ATM at the far end.
>>
>> >If so, please explain why it's impossible
>> >to build a frame-relay interface to deliver 1 Gbps.
>>
>> It isn't.
>>
>> I could argue, however, that there is no such thing as a frame relay
>> interface. Frame relay is layer 2, while interfaces are layer 1.
>>
>> _________________________________
>> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>www.tasmail.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
