Thanking you both very much :)) p2p i prefer but will bear in mind :))
top guys -----Original Message----- From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 August 2003 04:45 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Frame Relay Design Consideration (P2P or P2Multipoint) [7:73431] At 1:40 AM +0000 8/3/03, " Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorter " wrote: >""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> At 3:35 PM +0000 8/2/03, Charles Cthulhu Riley wrote: >> >Less IP addresses used? >> >> Typically, the advantage of P2P is that you can impose individual >> policies on each spoke. A basic such example would be bandwidth >> matching the CIR if all CIR's are not the same. Spoke-specific >> access lists would be another. Routing configuration generally is >> easier. >> >> You also get finer granularity for SNMP, accounting, etc. >> >> P2M might slightly conserve IP addresses, but, more significantly, it >> conserves Interface Descriptor Blocks (IDB) and interface buffers in >> the IOS. In some respects, it's more intuitive, although the routing >> configuration is more complex. > > >This was probably an important issue several IOS versions ago. These days, >with limits in the thousands ( maybe up to 10,000? ) descriptor blocks >available, even on the lowly 2501, this is no longer an issue. > >As I once said in another lifetime, changes in hardware and software have >led to less concern with traditional design issues that were centered around >scarce resources. Agreed that the IDB limit is not the issue with appropriate releases. When you consider interface buffers are allocated to each subinterface, however, that's a different memory impact on a small router. Admittedly, that isn't as major with the newer platforms. On a 2501 with 2MB shared RAM (where the buffers go), it's major. > >If I can trust the Cisco writings on the topic, trhe more modern QoS >mechanisms have even led to more effective use of WAN bandwidth, which has >continued to be the real bottleneck in networking. That bottleneck, as you know, isn't necessarily absolute bandwidth, but queueing delay in access to bandwidth by latency-sensitive applications. >Tools such as RED, WRED, >and tail drop have helped alleviate the problems associated with the >phenomenon of global synchronization. I suspect the work of the IETF and >queueing theory researchers over the past decade of so have led to a more >effective use of bandwidth, meaning that more data can use the same link. If >I understand correctly. **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For more information about Barclays Capital, please visit our web site at http://www.barcap.com. Internet communications are not secure and therefore the Barclays Group does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Although the Barclays Group operates anti-virus programmes, it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by viruses being passed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Barclays Group. Replies to this email may be monitored by the Barclays Group for operational or business reasons. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73449&t=73449 -------------------------------------------------- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
