home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.dcom.isdn:1103 comp.protocols.ppp:1050
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!destroyer!news.itd.umich.edu!pisa.citi.umich.edu!rees
- From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn,comp.protocols.ppp
- Subject: Re: dp2.2 on Interactive V3.2 & ISDN
- Date: 8 Jan 1993 16:20:31 GMT
- Organization: University of Michigan CITI
- Lines: 28
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <5d71fb6d.1bc5b@pisa.citi.umich.edu>
- References: <1413@se.alcbel.be> <C0IIz4.8AB@sranhd.sra.co.jp>
- Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu
- NNTP-Posting-Host: pisa.citi.umich.edu
-
- In article <C0IIz4.8AB@sranhd.sra.co.jp>, nisimura@sran233.sra.co.jp (Tohru Nishimura) writes:
-
- Unfortunately, there is interoperability problem between implementations,
- as usual. For example, different brand of integrated ISDN/IP cards would
- not talk each other. No surprise, please....
-
- There are two emerging "standards" for ip over isdn. One is rfc 1294 frame
- relay encapsulation, the other is ppp. An rfc 1294 ip frame looks like
- this:
-
- +-------------------------------+
- | Q.922 Address |
- +-------------------------------+
- |Control 0x03 | NLPID 0xCC |
- +-------------------------------+
- | IP Datagram |
- +-------------------------------+
- | FCS |
- +-------------------------------+
-
- Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), the mtu is undefined except that the
- maximum frame size must be greater or equal to 262.
-
- Frame relay may become important if anyone ever gets around to offering the
- service. For point-to-point links, which are the most common for ip today,
- the main advantage of frame relay is that you don't need a state machine to
- implement it. The disadvantage is that you have to configure everything
- manually, whereas with ppp you only need to configure one end manually.
-