This brings up another point that's been bugging me lately. When would you ever implement ATM SVCs? It seems that modern networks tend to be very chatty and there's generally a lot going on, especially if you're running a routing protocol. This would tend to keep the SVC up all or most of the time.
If that's the case, why not just nail up PVCs and be done with it? I can't think of a good example off the top of my head where it would be a _Really Good Idea_ to implement SVCs. I suppose it's possible to have networks where connections aren't up all the time, but when they are you need the capabilities inherent in ATM. However, I just can't think of a really good example where SVCs would be a superior choice vs. PVCs. Any thoughts? John ---- On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Hunt Lee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > John, > > For Frame-Relay PVCs, you would use: > > ip ospf network point-to-multipoint > > But for Frame-Relay SVCs or ATM SVCs, you would use: > > ip ospf network point-to-multipoint non-broadcast > > Best Regards, > Hunt Lee > > > ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].; > > I've been reading the CCO configuration guides and I now have a > > question. What is the difference between the following: > > > > ip ospf network point-to-multipoint > > > > and > > > > ip ospf network point-to-multipoint non-broadcast > > > > ?? > > > > More specifically, I really want to know when you would use the latter > > command. The example given on CCO is if we have excluded the > broadcast > > keyword from a frame relay map. I don't think I've ever seen anyone > > configure a frame map without that keyword so I don't know why you'd > > ever want to do that. > > > > Any thoughts here? > > > > Thanks, > > John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=37229&t=37205 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
