>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?
Perhaps it cleans things up, but I wasn't aware that DLCIs were
dirty. They are random values that identify that part of a virtual
circuit between a customer site and the local provider switch. They
have no meaning beyond that.
Making the addresses globally significant within a customer (i.e.,
DLCI 100 always goes to Rome) limits that customer to 900-something
possible sites. Not always an issue, but why impose a scalability
restriction?
To quote Vijay Gill about RFC 2547, if this is the answer, it must
have been a pretty stupid question. It's not that these are
telephone numbers that will ever be accessed from the outside.
Isn't inverse ARP more useful?
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
