=?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 how to deal with the
) and
the tech confirmed that they do not have keepalives set on it. Thank you
very much for your expertise!
Geoff Mossburg
-Original Message-
From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: HDLC, line prot
It sure sounds like your service provider isn't using keepalives, i.e. has
"no keepalive" configured on their serial interface. Both ends have to
either be using keepalives or not, with the same timer.
You would think that they would checked that, but the symptoms point to that
being the problem.
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
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?
>If s
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/cc/td/
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
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? Works fine
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
>
> I wasn't aware of that! Thanks.
>
> But isn't loop detection also a PPP option?
>
Yes, it's described as part of RFC1661, but it might be a catch-22.
The magic number field used for this is optional and must be negotiated.
Cisco routers do attempt magic number n
PPP uses magic numbers to detect loops. You'll see
warnings about receiving your magic #, etc if it
detects a loop. The magic number is a optional feature
though and every vendor doesn't use it or have it
enabled by default.
If using BayRS's 'Wellfleet Standard' which is their
implementation of H
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 who doesn't want to do minimum reconfiguration
"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 advantage is that Cisco's proprietary HDL
>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?
>> Thanks!!
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?
> Thanks!!!
Several
> 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 unfair to deprecate an "impleme
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|c
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 identify the nex
These are all Layer 2 protocols. This site has some very good explanations
of the differences.
http://www.sangoma.com/tutorial.htm
LLC2 = IEEE 802.2 Logical Link Control Type 2. Used by SNA and NetBIOS on a
LAN.
Frame Format: http://www.protocols.com/pbook/lan.htm#LLC
LAPD = Access p
They are all based on the original work done by IBM for SDLC. SDLC uses a
complicated master-slave scheme that is not used in the other protocols.
However, the fields in all of the frames of the protocols mentioned were
basically derived from a special case of the SDLC protocol.
Regards,
MLC
per
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
