RE: IETF encapsulation [7:48044]

2002-07-03 Thread Brian Lodwick
veryone! God Bless America! >>>Brian >From: "Morgan Hansen" >To: "'Brian Lodwick'" >Subject: RE: IETF encapsulation [7:48044] >Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 01:39:51 +0200 > >Hmm... Well? I belive you, no question there! Id trust you with my l

Re: IETF encapsulation [7:48044]

2002-07-03 Thread Brian Lodwick
Cisco. >>>Brian >From: "Morgan Hansen" >Reply-To: "Morgan Hansen" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: IETF encapsulation [7:48044] >Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 21:03:51 GMT > >Hi. > >Mmm... Reading in Wendel Odoms 640-607 studying book here it says:

Re: IETF encapsulation [7:48044]

2002-07-03 Thread Steven A. Ridder
Cisco is the default. ""Morgan Hansen"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi. > > Mmm... Reading in Wendel Odoms 640-607 studying book here it says: > > "For example, if one router is not a Cisco router and does not support > Cisco encapsulation, IETF encapsulation

IETF encapsulation [7:48044]

2002-07-03 Thread Morgan Hansen
Hi. Mmm... Reading in Wendel Odoms 640-607 studying book here it says: "For example, if one router is not a Cisco router and does not support Cisco encapsulation, IETF encapsulation is required". But, what im wondering is: Isnt IETF the default encapsulation method for Frame Relay on Cisco