So I guess frame-relay assumes a smart network/dumb host type situation?
Yes, and also generally with the caveat the host is directly
connected to the network, with no intervening devices such as routers.
The only other thing I saw was Fred's statement
...None of these companies had much IP
I have been searching as to the purpose of these FECN and BECN bits, and I
found this in an old newsgroup from 1994 from a guy who wrote part of Frame
Relay standards. Looks like Howard and Pricilla were right in that IP
wasn't a concern, as IBM had SDLC and ATT BellCore had x.25 and other
I have been searching as to the purpose of these FECN and BECN bits, and I
found this in an old newsgroup from 1994 from a guy who wrote part of Frame
Relay standards. Looks like Howard and Pricilla were right in that IP
wasn't a concern, as IBM had SDLC and ATT BellCore had x.25 and other
So I guess frame-relay assumes a smart network/dumb host type situation?
The only other thing I saw was Fred's statement
...None of these companies had much IP experience at the time, and it was
mostly X.25-experienced people working on it. So the congestion issues
needed to be brought out. I
At 09:58 PM 1/8/02, Steven A. Ridder wrote:
If I can assume that there were two schools of
thought, can I also assume that frame-relay with its smart network/dumb
host model and tcp/ip's smart host, peer-to-peer network were never meant to
merge?
I think it would be over-stating it a bit to say
5 matches
Mail list logo
