Getting some good info here.. So cisco has their own implementation of
HDLC.. is it compatible with other non-cisco devices (nothing particular in
mind here)? What does the control field of a cisco HDLC frame look like?
Thanks!!!
Jeremy
_
FAQ, list
Thats right,
cisco hdlc is not compatible with other vendors implemenation of hdlc.
An HDLC frame format is shown below:
111 2 variable
2 1
+++++---++--
--+
|flag|addr
> Getting some good info here.. So cisco has their own implementation of
>HDLC.. is it compatible with other non-cisco devices (nothing particular in
>mind here)? What does the control field of a cisco HDLC frame look like?
>Thanks!!!
>
>Jeremy
It's a little
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Jeremy Dumoit wrote:
>
> Getting some good info here.. So cisco has their own implementation of
> HDLC.. is it compatible with other non-cisco devices (nothing particular in
> mind here)? What does the control field of a cisco HDLC frame look like?
> Tha
>On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Jeremy Dumoit wrote:
>
>>
>> Getting some good info here.. So cisco has their own implementation of
>> HDLC.. is it compatible with other non-cisco devices (nothing particular in
>> mind here)? What does the control field of a cisco HD
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
>
> HDLC really doesn't offer any advantages over PPP, so it really
> reflects someone who doesn't want to do minimum reconfiguration of
> their Ciscos to worry about using PPP for multivendor compatibility.
>
Well, one small ad
I wasn't aware of that! Thanks.
But isn't loop detection also a PPP option?
At 10:16 PM 2/19/2001 -0500, Marty Adkins wrote:
>"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >
> > HDLC really doesn't offer any advantages over PPP, so it really
> > reflects someone
s their
implementation of HDLC - IP will come up if the
circuit/line is looped somewhere. Setting it to HDLC
on Cisco or Bay is a good test for pointing problem to
carrier when they've tested the line and swear its ok
and tests clean. It's also a good way to make sure the
cables between t
d.
Cisco routers do attempt magic number negotiation and do detect looped
paths, and let me check current doc... DO maintain a line protocol
up status as long as "down-when-looped" has NOT been configured.
So you're quite right -- for Cisco to Cisco, PPP and HDLC will both
tr
Dear all,
I am a little bit confused about the difference of
framing between hdlc, sdlc, lapb, lapd, llc2.
Can someone help me?
Thank you, cvp.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com
The question was whether or not Cisco used the "standard" 0x7E as a flag in
their HDLC implementation. The only WAN protocol analzer I could dig up
predates Cisco HDLC by a few decades. So I did rely on an o'scope as
planned. Between keepalives, a constant binary
1001100
I can explain the first three protocols namely hdlc, sdlc, lapb
First of all they are all WAN protocols, which is layer 2 protocol for
communicating across a WAN link, which protocol to use depends on two
factors the WAN technology that you use and the communicating equipment
HDLC stands for
perez claude-vincent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dear all,
>
> I am a little bit confused about the difference of
> framing between hdlc, sdlc, lapb, lapd, llc2.
>
> Can som
protocol on ISDN D channel. Ensures error free transmission.
Frame Format: http://www.protocols.com/pbook/isdn.htm#LAPD
HDLC = Sets the framing structure for synchronous communications and is
responsible for the error-free movement of data between network nodes.
There are two different
Another thing to keep in mind is that Cisco does not use a standard HDLC
header. That's why PPP is recommended for interoperability with non-Cisco
devices. Cisco doesn't take advantage of any of the reliability features of
standard HDLC, and Cisco added a field to the header to id
Hi, I have a couple of queries regarding HDLC and Frame Relay. I gather
they're both forms of data encapsulation for data and basically this means
putting the data in headers and trailers to identify to the next layer or
computer how to deal with the data. Please advise whether this is correc
Hi all,
I am about to take a second attempt with the CIT(support) exam.My first
attempt I had problem with HDLC topic.DO any one have any tips or web site,
cisco or otherwise, I could go to find out about HDLC(troubleshooting
tools,Methods and targets).Thanks.
PS
Also on IOS backups(problem
Thanks Scott! To synthesize:
The original question was whether efficiency would be improved if Cisco HDLC
were used instead of PPP. Most of us said "no," which is correct, (taking
efficiency to mean header overhead.)
A few of us added the caveat that a Cisco HDLC header/trailer m
Dear all
pls show me difference ppp and hdlc
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10737&t=10737
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report miscon
=?iso-8859-1?q?maine=20dude?= wrote:
>
> Hi, I have a couple of queries regarding HDLC and Frame Relay.
> I gather they're both forms of data encapsulation for data and
> basically this means putting the data in headers and trailers
> to identify to the next layer or computer
Cisco's categorization of topics for CIT is messed up and there really are
very few questions on HDLC troubleshooting, despite what they say.
My guess is that you missed other types of questions. Are you aware of the
Internetwork Troubleshooting Guide here:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/
Hello
My interface counters on a Serial line with HDLC are 4 bytes per IP
packet too high. I had the idea that this could be the HDLC frame but
this is much longer than 4 bytes.
Where is documented what exactly an interface counter counts?
TIA & bye,
-chris
one glaring difference, I have heard that Cisco's hdlc is modified so it
will not work with non cisco hdlc. PPP is PPP, you can attach a non Cisco
router running pp to it and be successful.
Brian "Sonic" Whalen
Success = Preparation + Opportunity
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, friend wro
I agree. PPP is a non-proprietary protocol and HDLC is vendor specific. If
you are connecting to a non Cisco device, use PPP. If you are connecting 2
Cisco devices, use HDLC. HDLC is the default encapsulation on Cisco routers.
HTH
MikeN
Network Engineer
""Brian"" wro
One difference between PPP and HDLC is that PPP supports authentication from
PAP (password authentication protocol) and CHAP (Challenge Handshake
Authentication Protocol). I believe that PPP runs over ISDN and HDLC
doesn't (but don't quote me on that one, I'm not sure).
-P
Me
Excellent point Preston. We can't forget multilink either. HDLC is also the
default encap for ISDN:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/dial
ts_c/dtsprt3/dcdbri.htm#xtocid771414
HTH
MikeN
Network Engineer
""Preston Kilburn"" wrote in
Both PPP and HDLC are encapsulation protocols on serial interfaces.But PPP
is better than HDLC in 2 main points:
1- PPP supports multiple network layer encapsulation (IP,IPX,AppleTalk,...)
while standard HDLC supports only IP encapsulation.[Cisco HDLC supports
multiple network layer
It has been mooted to me that we might get better performance from our
1Mb line by using HDLC rather than PPP.
Is this correct?
If so is it just a case of changing the Encapsulation PPP to
Encapsulation HDLC on both ends of the link?
Are there any implications I should be aware of
Is anyone out there using STAC compression on HDLC links in a live network?
If so what is the maximum speed link you would apply it to and has it
brought significant benefits.
Many thanks in advance
Tim Champion
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56073&
Hi All,
I have question regarding HDLC,a silly question but still a doubt.See I have
HDLC connection back to back.on one interface I configure compression and
other interface on other router no compression.Now when I debug the my seq
and mine seen no.s are in sync I mean same they inncrease ,that
Anyone know why I would have problems with apparently ANY routing
protocol over an HDLC point-to-point Link? Works fine with static routes,
but when I try to implement any routing protocol (RIP, EIGRP, OSPF, etc..)
they don't seem to work (no routes discovered). Am I missing something?
T
Hi guys,
In a point to point T1 link what would be advantages
or disadvantages of using HDLC vs PPP.
Thank you
=
JZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com
I've never heard efficiency as a reason to use PPP over HDLC. there are more
options with PPP, but otherwise both are based upon SDLC and therefore
nearly identical from a protocol perspective. I suppose HDLC are a couple
bytes smaller, but this would be negligable.
I'd say if y
Scott Roberts wrote:
>
> I've never heard efficiency as a reason to use PPP over HDLC.
> there are more
> options with PPP, but otherwise both are based upon SDLC and
> therefore
> nearly identical from a protocol perspective. I suppose HDLC
> are a couple
> byt
Actually, I use PPP so that I can combine two T1 lines into a single virtual
interface (multilink PPP). There wasn't the capability of doing this with
HDLC.
""Stuart Pittwood"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> It has been mooted to me that we might get bette
and
Cisco's HDLC. If one of the devices is not a Cisco, you would have to check
the documentation to verify that they are able to support Cisco HDLC.
-Original Message-
From: Stuart Pittwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
Stuart Pittwood wrote:
> It has been mooted to me that we might get better performance from our
> 1Mb line by using HDLC rather than PPP.
>
>
>
> Is this correct?
HDLC is more efficient so I guess yes. If I recall correctly,
(someone will let me know if not;) PPP ri
MADMAN wrote:
>
> Stuart Pittwood wrote:
> > It has been mooted to me that we might get better performance
> from our
> > 1Mb line by using HDLC rather than PPP.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is this correct?
>
>HDLC is more efficient so I guess yes.
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
> MADMAN wrote:
>
>>Stuart Pittwood wrote:
>>
>>>It has been mooted to me that we might get better performance
>>
>>from our
>>
>>>1Mb line by using HDLC rather than PPP.
>>>
>>>
>>>
&g
MADMAN wrote:
>
> Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
> > MADMAN wrote:
> >
> >>Stuart Pittwood wrote:
> >>
> >>>It has been mooted to me that we might get better performance
> >>
> >>from our
> >>
> >>>1Mb line by
By the way, the document I have on Cisco HDLC (which I can no longer find on
a Web site) not only doesn't mention any flags but also doesn't mention an
FCS. It must have an FCS. We know it drops bad frames.
Cisco HDLC is starting to sound as big as PPP! :-) I'm not sure it really
w
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>
> MADMAN wrote:
> >
> > Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
> > > MADMAN wrote:
> > >
> > >>Stuart Pittwood wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>It has been mooted to me that we might get better
> performa
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>
> s vermill wrote:
> >> Cisco HDLC just
> > > has this:
> > >
> > > Address - 1 byte
> > > Control - 1 bytes
> > > Protocol - 2 bytes
> > >
> > > It's curious that Cisco HDLC doesn&
Hmm. Well maybe I didn't really want you to get your scope out then, but
rather a protocol analyzer. That didn't sound as "appealing" though. :-)
I'm most interested in the fields in the Cisco HDLC header. OK, I guess I'm
curious about the signal too, now that you p
s vermill wrote:
>> Cisco HDLC just
> > has this:
> >
> > Address - 1 byte
> > Control - 1 bytes
> > Protocol - 2 bytes
> >
> > It's curious that Cisco HDLC doesn't have the flag fields.
> > Maybe they just aren't mention
>Hmm. Well maybe I didn't really want you to get your scope out then, but
>rather a protocol analyzer. That didn't sound as "appealing" though. :-)
>
>I'm most interested in the fields in the Cisco HDLC header. OK, I guess I'm
>curious about the signal
at all.
scott
""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> s vermill wrote:
> >> Cisco HDLC just
> > > has this:
> > >
> > > Address - 1 byte
> > > Control - 1 bytes
> > > Protocol - 2 bytes
> &g
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
> >Hmm. Well maybe I didn't really want you to get your scope out
> then, but
> >rather a protocol analyzer. That didn't sound as "appealing"
> though. :-)
> >
> >I'm most interested in the fields in the Cisco
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>
> Hmm. Well maybe I didn't really want you to get your scope out
> then, but rather a protocol analyzer. That didn't sound as
> "appealing" though. :-)
>
> I'm most interested in the fields in the Cisco HDLC header. OK,
Hello group,
I have a configuration on a router that does "ppp encapsulation" over a
serial line. Our operator is running HDLC on the line. On this line we get
some CRC errors from time to time. Can this configuration be responsible for
the CRC errors?
Is it correct to run "pp
I have applied that command on Cisco Router in a live network.
It increases bandwidth that 64k to 128 Kbps. I have tested it works by
ping response times and file transfer.
It really works...
Tim Champion wrote:
>Is anyone out there using STAC compression on HDLC links in a live network?
What router models did you enable it on, and what sort of traffic goes
over the link?
-Original Message-
From: Metin YILDIZLI [mailto:metin@;sekom.com.tr]
Sent: 22 October 2002 12:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: HDLC STAC Compression [7:56073]
I have applied that command on Cisco
WAN compression usually compresses the data payload. The HDLC sequence
numbers are not in data packets; they are in keepalive packets. They are in
the control plane, not the user plane.
I can't say for sure, but my guess is that they are not compressed. If they
were, the interfaces wouldn&#
""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> WAN compression usually compresses the data payload. The HDLC sequence
> numbers are not in data packets; they are in keepalive packets. They are
in
> the control plane
HDLC sequences numbers aren't in data frames. They are in separate keepalive
frames. They aren't like TCP sequence numbers, which sequence the data. They
aren't in the header of the data frame. They are in separate frames in the
control plane.
Which, to make a long and wind
Are you treating them as NBMA ???
- Original Message -
From: Rizzo Damian
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:49 AM
Subject: HDLC and Routing protocols [7:5739]
> Anyone know why I would have problems with apparently ANY routing
> protocol over an HDLC point-to-point Link? Work
Not to be rude or anything, but did you turn on IP routing?
Darel R Graham
-Original Message-
From: Rizzo Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: HDLC and Routing protocols [7:5739]
Anyone know why I would
ppp is generic
HDLC is cisco propriatory..
Andrew Larkins
BCom, CCNA
Usko Communications
Tel: +2711 800-9300
Fax: +2711 800-9495/6/7/8/9
Cell: +2783-656-7214
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
“This message may contain information which is confidential and
Keep in mind that if you use HDLC, you have to be sticking with a particular
vendor...
HDLC is a little better for troubleshooting...but my pref is to use PPP.
That way you can use things like PPP CHAP authentication and other neat
features of PPP.
stanford
"John Zaggat" <[EM
All,
I'm having a problem that I don't understand and I was hoping
someone out there might be able to give me some insight. I have a 2503 with
an HDLC connection on Serial0 going out to my service provider. The
running-config is very basic (sanitized, of course):
version 11.2
!
hi
i want to test the connection between two serial interfaces of a router back
to back, without modems. i want the sample configuration from you friends,
in testing this.
Regards
K. Sadagopan
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=24086&t=24086
---
This was my thought, as well, but the tech checked the encapsulation.
It appears that the message says "HDLC" even if you have the interface
set for HDLC, Frame Relay, or SDLC. I'd love to find a list of those
type codes but I gave up after searching for about ten minutes using
C
Rock -
On a serial line, one generally runs either PPP, hdlc, or frame -- but
only one! If the command "encapsulation ppp" is used, then that is your
encapsulation type, not hdlc. The source of your errors is elsewhere.
BASSOLE Rock wrote:
> I have a configuration on a rou
HI All
I have simple configuration of HDLC connected back to back.
If i give ip unnumbered at one end and the static ip address at the other
end, I cant ping the either end. But when i give show ip int brief, it shows
the line and protocol are up.
If i give ip unnumbered at both ends, now i am
here might be able to give me some insight. I have
> a 2503 with
> an HDLC connection on Serial0 going out to my service provider.
> The
> running-config is very basic (sanitized, of course):
>
> version 11.2
> !
> ip subnet-zero
> !
> interface Serial0
> ip addre
As usual, you were absolutely correct Pricilla! The part which I didn't
mention (because, for some reason, I figured that it was unimportant) was
that this is an HDLC circuit going to my provider for a VPN circuit. They
have a Nortel Shasta 5000 (essentially an IP multi-service edge router
--server(DCE)
1.1.1.1 1.1.1.2
cdp enabled cdp enabled
Stac enabled no compression
In this scenario the keepalives are exchanged properly and the link status
also remains up.
Debug all
client side#
00:15:55: Serial0: HDLC myseq 27, mineseen 27
Hi Deepak
When you configure "ip unnnumbered" on an interfaces it looks like an
interface with a /0 mask.
On the other side with a configured ip address on the interface you have a
different mask. So the two connected interfaces don't belong to the same
network.
What you could do is to configure o
Hi Claudio
Thanks for quick response.
But i have tried that options. i defined a static ip route to the network
on the other end through the connecting interface.it did work.
But when i am using the routing protocol, i am not able to ping either end.
But if i make the other end also unnumbered,
Which is failing to get to the other side? The ping (echo) or the ping reply
(echo reply). Pinging could fail for either reason. Debug icmp and you might
get more info.
Also, send us your configs. Help us help you.
Priscilla
Deepak N wrote:
>
> Hi Claudio
> Thanks for quick response.
> But i
Hi
What kind of routing protocol are you using? Ospf can not build an adjacency
this way.
With other routing protocols you should be able to exchange routing tables.
But you won't be able to send traffic, because the router does not know
where the next-hop address is. So you still need this stat
Hi all
The following are the configurations of the routers and the ping outputs.
I have given 3 cases.
1) When ip unnumbered at one end and static routes are defined
sdmheadend#sh run
Building configuration...
Current configuration : 1115 bytes
!
version 12.2
service timestamps debug datetim
Hi
Give us a look at the routing table from both routers.
The router with the configured ip address on the Serial interface does not
know how to get to the next hop address.
Do you see in the routing table the next-hop address or the outbound
interface?
see you
Message Posted at:
http://www.g
So it fails when you have numbered on one side and unnumbered on the other
side and you are running RIP?
What did "show ip route" tell you when the problem occured? Were the
relevant routes in both routers' tables?
What address does sdmheadend use to send the echo? If it's using
172.20.110.10, th
HI Claudio
Please find the following for the different cases i mentioned.
Regards
Deepak
1)When ip unnumbered at one end and static routes are defined
sdmheadend#sh ip rou
Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSP
Hi
when i did debug ip icmp, i got the message that its unroutable when one
end is numbered and the other end is unnumbered. This is expected because it
doesnt have the next hop ip address to reach. But i expect the same
behaviour when both are unnumbered. But it is able to send the rip updates
a
Do these labs for better understanding...
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a
0080094e8d.shtml
WATCH THE WORD WRAP!
Deepak N wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> The following are the configurations of the routers and the
> ping outputs.
> I have given 3 cases.
>
> 1) W
specific route for that IP.
Daniel Ladrach
CCNP,CCNA
WorldCom
-Original Message-
From: Deepak N [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IP unnumbered for HDLC connection [7:62134]
HI All
I have simple configuration of HDLC
Hi Ladrach
I tried with the route statement. it worked perfectly. but the problem is
when i am running the routing protocol. i have given detailed configs for 3
different cases in the previous mails.
Regards
Deepak
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=62193&t=62134
Deepak N wrote:
>
> HI All
> I have simple configuration of HDLC connected back to back.
> If i give ip unnumbered at one end and the static ip address at
> the other end, I cant ping the either end. But when i give show
> ip int brief, it shows the line and protocol are
Hi Vermill
Now I got the point. So when i am using the numbered interface, the router
tries to reach the next hop via the next hop ip address, in my case it is
behind the directly connected interface.But it has no way of finding the
next hop ip address behind the unnumbered interface. So it was no
Deepak N wrote:
>
> Hi Vermill
> Now I got the point. So when i am using the numbered
> interface, the router tries to reach the next hop via the next
> hop ip address, in my case it is behind the directly connected
> interface.But it has no way of finding the next hop ip address
> behind the unn
Glad you got it figured out and I hope you learned some reason(s) not
to do unnumbered. I can't think of and good reasons for it and if you
running out of addresses I have an RFC full of them for you;)
Dave
Deepak N wrote:
> Hi Vermill
> Now I got the point. So when i am using the numbered
MADMAN wrote:
>
> Glad you got it figured out and I hope you learned some
> reason(s) not
> to do unnumbered. I can't think of and good reasons for it and
> if you
> running out of addresses I have an RFC full of them for you;)
Dave,
I heard rumor to the effect that Cisco would introduce /31 ma
In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote:
> I heard rumor to the effect that Cisco would introduce /31 mask support
for
> serial p-t-p links. Anyone tried that yet? I keep forgeting to when on a
> router with shiny new IOS.
It works well on all platforms I've used it on. Introduced in 12.2(2)T,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaj J. Niemi) wrote:
>
> In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote:
>
> > I heard rumor to the effect that Cisco would introduce /31
> mask support for
> > serial p-t-p links. Anyone tried that yet? I keep
> forgeting to when on a
> > router with shiny new IOS.
>
> It works w
I think support for /31 masks was introduced in 12.2.8 though I'm
sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken;)
Dave
s vermill wrote:
> MADMAN wrote:
>
>>Glad you got it figured out and I hope you learned some
>>reason(s) not
>>to do unnumbered. I can't think of and good reasons for it and
Dear all,
I have difficult inc onfigure FXO to FXS voice over HDLC, does anyone has
the sample configuration of FXO to FXS voice over HDLC or the address of
website < because I have already try to search at cisco site but the result
is nothing.
Thanks,
An
--server(DCE)
1.1.1.1 1.1.1.2
cdp enabled cdp enabled
Stac enabled no compression
In this scenario the keepalives are exchanged properly and the link status
also remains up.
Debug all
client side#
00:15:55: Serial0: HDLC myseq 27, mineseen 27
nice job of examination and observation. thanks.
may I suggest that CDP packets, as with ftp, tftp, or any other data
packets, are payload to the HDLC frame.
--
TANSTAAFL
"there ain't no such thing as a free lunch"
""Simmi Singla"" wrote in message
[EMAI
IIRC there's no voice over HDLC thing (from Cisco).
Forget about the voice for a moment, and make IP running over HDLC. Then
make voice running over IP.
/felis
Andhy Indarto wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have difficult inc onfigure FXO to FXS voice over HDLC, does anyone
Actually there is voice over hdlc. It is done on the Cisco MC3810
concentrator. In fact there is a good lab at mentortech dealing with voice
over hdlc. Lab 2400 Voice over HDLC Using MC3810
-Original Message-
From: Oleg Mazurov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:25
Hello,Can't seem to get the compress command to work on Fr intfsAlso
on hdlc inft. only the stac compression shows up Any reason as to
why??Ex. On a FR inft.RTD(config)#int s0/0
RTD(config-if)#compress ?
% Unrecognized command On a PPP intf.RTB(config-if)#compress ?
mppc
Hello,Can't seem to get the compress command to work on Fr intfsAlso
on hdlc inft. only the stac compression shows up Any reason as to
why?? Ex. On a FR inft.RTD(config)#int s0/0
RTD(config-if)#compress ?
% Unrecognized command On a PPP intf.OKRTB(config-if)#compress ?
ression for all
LAPB, PPP,
and HDLC encapsulations. HDLC encapsulations supports the Stacker
compression algorithm. PPP and LAPB encapsulations support both predictor
and Stacker compression algorithms. "
Note no mention of FR encapsulation.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/produc
Dear Guru's,
Have seen that in the frame format of ISDN, Frame Relay and HDLC, there are
two bits of Extended Address field. I would like to know why two fields when
one can suffice?
With my limited knowledge, I can understand that may be when (in case of FR)
the DLCI bits increase beyond 10
Page 314 Remote Access Book. - For HDLC links, STAC is the only available
choice.
Page 316 - For FRame RElay deployments, use the frame-relay payload-compress
command to enable STAC compression on an interface or a subinterface.
The reason that you can only use payload compression on a framer
>Dear Guru's,
>Have seen that in the frame format of ISDN, Frame Relay and HDLC, there are
>two bits of Extended Address field. I would like to know why two fields when
>one can suffice?
>With my limited knowledge, I can understand that may be when (in case of FR)
>the DL
In article , Howard C. Berkowitz
writes
>>Dear Guru's,
>>Have seen that in the frame format of ISDN, Frame Relay and HDLC, there are
>>two bits of Extended Address field. I would like to know why two fields
when
>>one can suffice?
>>With my limited knowledge
99 matches
Mail list logo
