Local DLCIs take up a smaller field than globally significant addresses.
>From: "bm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "bm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: frame relay local addressing
>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:43:30 -0400
>
>can anyone make a strong case for using local addressing
>on a Frame relay network? I understand that MCI forces
>the use of local addressing.....ATT can go either way, but
>if you use local addressing, you have to manage the
>addressing yourself.
>
>for those who don't know what local addressing is....the
>frame provider's equipment advertises DLCIs to
>your router...which you then incorporate into your router's
>config. each side of a link has its own DLCI...could be 244-132,
>188-234 (head end, remote site)....with local addressing you can clean
>this
>up and make it 244-144, 232-132, 255-155.....basically make
>some uniformity.
>
>other than achieving uniformity, are there any other good
>reasons for doing this?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
