WAN question
I have some questions about HDLC and WAN protocols. Is HDLC via serial interface between router and mainframe? and between router and router? If HDLC is done between router to router, is it over WAN using POTS? Do WAN technologies such as Frame Relay, X.25, HDLC and ATM networks use POTS? Thanks you for any info. -- Oscar Rau [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: WAN question
HDLC may be used between routers and routers, routers and mainframes, and mainframes and mainframes. It's all over the place; that's why it's a standard. It doesn't have to go over a WAN - it can be back to back - but it certainly can, though never over POTS. POTS stands for Plain Ol' Telephone Service, which is limited to 56K (and further limited to 53K in the U.S. by the FCC), so there's no way that higher bandwidth technologies can be used over it. Besides that, it's asynchronous, whereas the others you mentioned are not (well ATM kinda is...). POTS is a WAN technology, but it's not a protocol like PPP or SLIP. The only way a WAN protocol (other than async) would use POTS, that I can think of, is as a backup method. - Don -Original Message- From: Oscar Rau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 7:52 AM To: Cisco GroupStudy Subject: WAN question I have some questions about HDLC and WAN protocols. Is HDLC via serial interface between router and mainframe? and between router and router? If HDLC is done between router to router, is it over WAN using POTS? Do WAN technologies such as Frame Relay, X.25, HDLC and ATM networks use POTS? Thanks you for any info. -- Oscar Rau [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter. * ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: WAN question
: POTS stands for Plain Ol' Telephone Service, which is limited to 56K : (and further limited to 53K in the U.S. by the FCC) This is a technical list, and I'd like to discuss this: I've heard that the 53k FCC limit was an x2 limitation, not a K56Flex or v90 limitation. The website I read this on was quite persistant about this, insulting USR for propograting the "lie" that 53K was the ceiling, when really it was just the ceiling for THEIR technology. Does anyone know the official verdict on this? ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: WAN question
Hmm... you forced me to think, dang it. I went to www.fcc.gov to check, but I wasn't really sure what to search for. If anybody has a modem with the 53K FCC rule listed on it by number, I'd be interested in knowing what you come up with too. -Original Message- From: Diegmueller, Jason (I.T. Dept) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 10:45 AM To: 'Taylor, Don'; 'Oscar Rau'; Cisco GroupStudy Subject: RE: WAN question : POTS stands for Plain Ol' Telephone Service, which is limited to 56K : (and further limited to 53K in the U.S. by the FCC) This is a technical list, and I'd like to discuss this: I've heard that the 53k FCC limit was an x2 limitation, not a K56Flex or v90 limitation. The website I read this on was quite persistant about this, insulting USR for propograting the "lie" that 53K was the ceiling, when really it was just the ceiling for THEIR technology. Does anyone know the official verdict on this? * The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter. * ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: WAN question
I am curious about it too, but then I think: Is that extra 3kbps gonna make or break me on a dial-up line? [=`) I'll see if any of my devices list the FCC regulation by number... >From: "Taylor, Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Taylor, Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Cisco GroupStudy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: WAN question >Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:52:20 -0400 > >Hmm... you forced me to think, dang it. I went to www.fcc.gov to check, but >I wasn't really sure what to search for. If anybody has a modem with the >53K >FCC rule listed on it by number, I'd be interested in knowing what you come >up with too. > >-Original Message- >From: Diegmueller, Jason (I.T. Dept) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 10:45 AM >To: 'Taylor, Don'; 'Oscar Rau'; Cisco GroupStudy >Subject: RE: WAN question > > >: POTS stands for Plain Ol' Telephone Service, which is limited to 56K >: (and further limited to 53K in the U.S. by the FCC) > >This is a technical list, and I'd like to discuss this: > >I've heard that the 53k FCC limit was an x2 limitation, not a K56Flex >or v90 limitation. The website I read this on was quite persistant >about this, insulting USR for propograting the "lie" that 53K was >the ceiling, when really it was just the ceiling for THEIR technology. > >Does anyone know the official verdict on this? >* >The information in this email is confidential and may be legally >privileged. >It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone >else >is unauthorized. > >If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, >distribution >or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited >and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice >contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed >in >the governing KPMG client engagement letter. >* > >___ >UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WAN question
On 0, "Taylor, Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > HDLC may be used between routers and routers, routers and mainframes, and > mainframes and mainframes. It's all over the place; that's why it's a > standard. It doesn't have to go over a WAN - it can be back to back - but it > certainly can, though never over POTS. POTS stands for Plain Ol' Telephone > Service, which is limited to 56K (and further limited to 53K in the U.S. by > the FCC), so there's no way that higher bandwidth technologies can be used > over it. Besides that, it's asynchronous, whereas the others you mentioned > are not (well ATM kinda is...). > > POTS is a WAN technology, but it's not a protocol like PPP or SLIP. The only > way a WAN protocol (other than async) would use POTS, that I can think of, > is as a backup method. > > - Don > > -Original Message- > From: Oscar Rau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 7:52 AM > To: Cisco GroupStudy > Subject: WAN question > > > I have some questions about HDLC and WAN protocols. > > Is HDLC via serial interface between router and mainframe? and between > router and router? > If HDLC is done between router to router, is it over WAN using POTS? > > Do WAN technologies such as Frame Relay, X.25, HDLC and ATM networks use > POTS? > > Thanks you for any info. > -- > > Oscar Rau > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Thanks for replying. I will go to the more basic level of this question. For PPP, ISDN, DSL type of WAN connections, you can use the analogue phone lines at home. What about for Frame Relay, T1, T2 etc. type of lines? What medium is used for these WAN connections? I was under the impression that it is POTS (analogue lines) with specialized equipment. Please correct me if I am wrong. -- Oscar Rau [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WAN question
> >Oscar Rau >[EMAIL PROTECTED] asked, Let's put these in context. At the physical layer, WAN oriented implementations are Data Terminal Equipment (DTE) at the host or (usually) router side. Host Upper Layers Transport Data LinkData Link Physical DTE---DCE Physical DCE Physical ---DTE Physical | | Transmission medium-| The external physical interface between a DTE and DCE is RS-232, V.35, or other serial specifications. The DCE converts to and from the actual transmission format on the medium. On a dialup link over POTS, the DCEs are modems. You can have null cables between DTE and DCE. On digital media, the DCE might be DSU's or CSU's that convert to the line format. If POTS is considered the general dial service, Frame, X.25, HDLC, and ATM do not use it. POTS generally implies a modem modulation specification, with PPP running over it. IBM mainframes attach to routers with SDLC, not HDLC. >I have some questions about HDLC and WAN protocols. > >Is HDLC via serial interface between router and mainframe? and >between router and router? >If HDLC is done between router to router, is it over WAN using POTS? > >Do WAN technologies such as Frame Relay, X.25, HDLC and ATM networks use POTS? > Thanks you for any info. = ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WAN question
Well I think I saw this question a little bit ago. HDLC what doesn't use it? I'll start with what I think I know about: - Do WAN technologies such as Frame Relay, X.25, HDLC and ATM networks use POTS? Well these technologies are normally dedicated solutions so POTS is out for them. I say normally because I know some WAN providers still use X.25 and they run asynchronous dial into the POP on their internetwork which is sort of an integration of POTS (local loop) and X.25. - If HDLC is done between router to router, is it over WAN using POTS? Well if memory serves me the lowest level of PPP is HDLC. So then most of the time for remote access and asynchronous dial-up solutions the user will dial up and use PPP as the WAN protocol across POTS. You could have a router setup for dial on demand, to dial into an access server (router), using HDLC in some way as the WAN protocol. This may be misconstruing things though from your original question since the additional characteristics of PPP make it different than just HDLC alone. - Is HDLC via serial interface between router and mainframe? I had thought that SDLC was used for Mainframe communication but I'm probobaly out to lunch. hopefully someone else can help us out on this one. >>>Brian >From: Oscar Rau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Oscar Rau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Cisco GroupStudy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: WAN question >Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 10:52:00 -0400 > >I have some questions about HDLC and WAN protocols. > >Is HDLC via serial interface between router and mainframe? and between >router and router? >If HDLC is done between router to router, is it over WAN using POTS? > >Do WAN technologies such as Frame Relay, X.25, HDLC and ATM networks use >POTS? > >Thanks you for any info. >-- > >Oscar Rau >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >___ >UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WAN question
Has anyone here researched the problems that modem manufacturers may be having now? For years they were making a killing selling newer faster modems. Now the can't do anything because of POTS limitations. I wonder how this has affected company profits etc.?? "Diegmueller, Jason (I.T. Dept)" wrote: > : POTS stands for Plain Ol' Telephone Service, which is limited to 56K > : (and further limited to 53K in the U.S. by the FCC) > > This is a technical list, and I'd like to discuss this: > > I've heard that the 53k FCC limit was an x2 limitation, not a K56Flex > or v90 limitation. The website I read this on was quite persistant > about this, insulting USR for propograting the "lie" that 53K was > the ceiling, when really it was just the ceiling for THEIR technology. > > Does anyone know the official verdict on this? > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WAN question
I believe the FCC limits this, but as far as I know, v.90, K56Flex and x2 are all limited to 33.6Kbps upload speed. Can anyone else back this up? Mike W. Krazikat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Has anyone here researched the problems that modem manufacturers may be > having now? For years they were making a killing selling newer faster > modems. Now the can't do anything because of POTS limitations. I wonder > how this has affected company profits etc.?? > > "Diegmueller, Jason (I.T. Dept)" wrote: > > > : POTS stands for Plain Ol' Telephone Service, which is limited to 56K > > : (and further limited to 53K in the U.S. by the FCC) > > > > This is a technical list, and I'd like to discuss this: > > > > I've heard that the 53k FCC limit was an x2 limitation, not a K56Flex > > or v90 limitation. The website I read this on was quite persistant > > about this, insulting USR for propograting the "lie" that 53K was > > the ceiling, when really it was just the ceiling for THEIR technology. > > > > Does anyone know the official verdict on this? > > > > ___ > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
