At 05:49 PM 1/7/02, Steven A. Ridder wrote: >I understand that FR is multi-protocol, but I feel confident in saying that >most traffic is IP based.
Traffic wasn't so overwhelmingly IP-based at the time that Frame Relay was designed. And even in the case of the IP traffic, quite a bit of it was and still is UDP-based. Also, I don't think the CCITT (ITU) really cared too much about what was riding above. The OSI layers dictate modularity. I doubt that answers your question, though! I hope someone else answers too. Also see one additional comment below. >With that out of the way, historically, why did the writers of frame-relay >include BECN as a method of congestion control when 1, it isn't end-to-end >as TCP is, and therefore not as "good" as TCP, and 2, End-to-end congestion control isn't necessarily better. Consider three regions: Region 1 Region 2 Region 2 If Region 2 experiences congestion and can notify Region 1 (and Region 1 can adjust), then Region 3 never experiences the congestion. This is a good thing. >not nearly as robust >and complex as TCP's tried and true methods of congestion control. > >Is there another reason that I don't understand. > >-- > >RFC 1149 Compliant. > > >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=31226&t=31219 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
