>Local DLCIs take up a smaller field than globally significant addresses.
And what problem does that solve?
I'm thinking of a thread not long ago that pointed out that subnet
masks could be stored as counters. Bandwidth efficient, but
processor inefficient.
In most modern networks, a bit here and a bit there doesn't make much
difference. Bandwidth is cheap and getting cheaper. In networks
where bandwidth is scarce, such as wireless, the bandwidth conserving
measures are far more extensive than just using small fields -- lots
of exotic compression methods.
>
>
>>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]
