Martin, The below is from a production router. Int ATM2/0 is a DS-3 ATM port with Service Inter-Working Translational (Frame to ATM) PVC's. Hope this helps.
interface ATM2/0 description VPI/VCI 2/17 DNEC.XXXXXX.ATI (T-3) no ip address atm scrambling cell-payload no atm auto-configuration no atm ilmi-keepalive no atm address-registration no atm ilmi-enable ! interface ATM2/0.37 point-to-point description 192k PVC to XXX - Far end router mtu 1500 bandwidth 100 ip address 10.231.xxx.xxx 255.255.255.252 ip load-sharing per-packet ip summary-address eigrp 1 10.xxx.xxx.xxx 255.255.0.0 5 atm pvc 37 2 37 aal5snap oam 10 - The 2 is the VPI number and the 37 is the remote end PVC number. Or you can do it this way: - Same router, just a different interface to a different far end: interface ATM2/0.40 point-to-point description 384K PVC to XXX - Far end router mtu 1500 bandwidth 100 ip address 10.xxx.xxx.xxx 255.255.255.252 ip load-sharing per-packet ip summary-address eigrp 1 10.231.0.0 255.255.0.0 5 pvc 1/40 vbr-nrt 4608 4608 1 (4608 is far end b/w plus 10% for ATM overhead i.e. far end has 3 T1/5's, the 1 is for MBS - Maximum Burst Size) oam-pvc manage I'm traffic shaping the PCR/SCR/MBS in the above example. Martin Reilly wrote: > Morning all. I've been lurking on this list for a week or so to get a > flavour... seems there are some very knowledgeable people here. :) > > I have a question I'd appreciate some advice with regarding ATM and > Frame Relay interworking. > > I'm deploying a WAN using a telco that is providing "typical" frame > relay ports over E1 links at ten remote offices. At the central site, > where PVCs from the remote offices all come in, the telco is providing a > 34Mb circuit, using ATM, to support the aggregated bandwidth that may be > required. > > Now, I'm pretty familiar with frame relay (most of this setup is > actually just migrating from one telco's frame service to another) and > that part I have no problem with. But I'm a newbie to ATM (reading up on > it at the moment). Looks like ATM to ATM isn't too dissimilar to frame. > > The telco says that the interworking should be "seamless", but are not > terribly specific on details. Could it be as simple as pointing an ATM > VC to a Frame PVC and letting the telco deal with the differences in the > middle somewhere? I've never heard of this before, which worries me a > bit! > > You might ask why I didn't sort all this out before signing contracts... > but back then, we were planning for the 34Mb link to be provided as a > "normal" frame port which would have been nothing new to us (other than > the extra speed). Some "issues" came up later which necessitated the > change. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53537&t=53414 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
