Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!boulder!daemon From: Jim Forster Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco Subject: Re: Frame Relay? Message-ID: <35835@boulder.Colorado.EDU> Date: 10 Jun 91 22:11:27 GMT Sender: daemon@boulder.Colorado.EDU Lines: 26 >> The sad thing is only that there are many arguments that are used in favour >> of frame relay, that are not advantages of frame relay. Yes, I agree. >> On the other hand, the customer has probably to put much more >> work into configuring his net on a frame relay bearer service compared >> to a router network that is already based on his protocols, so for a >> customer going for IP or CLNS it may even be simpler from the point >> of administration to go for a router network (that's the whole Yes, I also agree. The difference here, for instance, is that with FR the customer has to manage "N" separate PVC's, while with a Router-Network provider typically they provide an interface directly to the customer Ethernet or Token Ring. >> Sorry, this whole discussion may be totally misplaced on this group, >> i'll stop now. Well, I think we've reached the end (we understand each other's viewpoints and agree!). And while the discussion has not been cisco-specific, I hope it has been interesting and worthwhile to the readers. -- Jim