At 09:58 PM 1/8/02, Steven A. Ridder wrote: >If I can assume that there were two schools of >thought, can I also assume that frame-relay with its smart network/dumb >host model and tcp/ip's smart host, peer-to-peer network were never meant to >merge?
I think it would be over-stating it a bit to say they were never meant to merge. ;-) TCP/IP has to run on top of something to be useful and Frame Relay has to have something above it to be useful. >Also, what effect does becn/fecn (if implemented) have on TCP/IP's >windowing? Any? Should the two never be used together, or can they >co-exist peacefully if implemented right? In most cases TCP congestion control behaves independently of BECN and FECN. I don't think Cisco routers even have a way to let TCP end hosts know that BECN or FECN have been set, although there may be some advanced features that handle this and/or interact with RED or something. Anyone else know? Thanks. >Sorry to ask all these questions, but this is like a history lesson to me >(IP was RFC'd in 1981, so I was 3 years old) and I learn best if I can get a >grasp on not only how things are done, but why. > > >-- > >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=31351&t=31219 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
