Your answer is logical, but not true for Cisco. Cisco lets you do 
back-to-back Frame Relay. I think they added it mostly to allows training 
classes to save on equipment costs!

If a person can afford to use a router in the middle as a switch, it really 
enables a better understanding of Frame Relay. When you configure the 
switch especially, light bulbs often go off. The back-to-back stuff, on the 
other hand, muddies one's understanding. But it should work. Just make one 
the DCE, add clocking, and the frame-relay switching command.

Priscilla

At 05:50 PM 2/8/02, Chris Charlebois wrote:
>You cannot simulate frame-relay with 2 routers.  A minimuim of three are
>required.  One router must serve as the frame-relay switch.  This router
>needs to be connected to both other routers via back-to-back serial
>connections.
>
>In many ways, frame-relay is analogous to IP.  It's just one more set
>removed.  In frame-relay, a router will segment data into frame-relay
>packets and address them using the DLCI.  These packets are sent to the
>frame-relay provider.  The frame-relay provider's equipment (referred to as
>a switch) passes the packet to another switch based on the DLCI.  I don't
>really know how many switches a common frame-relay packet goes through, but
>it doesn't really matter, because it will come out in the right place on the
>other router.  The other router accepts the data, reassembles it into the
>original form and routes it accordingly.
>
>The trick is, frame-relay was never meant to operate back-to-back.
>Therefore, each router needs to be directly connected to a frame-relay
>switch.  I don't have a link to help in that configuration, but if you get a
>third router, I can dig something up.
________________________

Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34919&t=34864
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to