Browse Prior Art Database

Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay (RFC1490)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002318D
Original Publication Date: 1993-Jul-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-12
Document File: 26 page(s) / 69K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

T. Bradley: AUTHOR [+3]

Abstract

This memo describes an encapsulation method for carrying network interconnect traffic over a Frame Relay backbone. It covers aspects of both Bridging and Routing. Additionally, it describes a simple fragmentation procedure for carrying large frames over a frame relay network with a smaller MTU.

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 4% of the total text.

Network Working Group T. Bradley

Request for Comments: 1490 Wellfleet Communications, Inc.

Obsoletes: 1294 C. Brown

Wellfleet Communications, Inc.

A. Malis

Ascom Timeplex, Inc.

July 1993

Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay

Status of this Memo

This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet

community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.

Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol

Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This memo describes an encapsulation method for carrying network

interconnect traffic over a Frame Relay backbone. It covers aspects

of both Bridging and Routing. Additionally, it describes a simple

fragmentation procedure for carrying large frames over a frame relay

network with a smaller MTU.

Systems with the ability to transfer both the encapsulation method

described in this document, and others must have a priori knowledge

of which virtual circuits will carry which encapsulation method and

this encapsulation must only be used over virtual circuits that have

been explicitly configured for its use.

Acknowledgements

Comments and contributions from many sources, especially those from

Ray Samora of Proteon, Ken Rehbehn of Netrix Corporation, Fred Baker

and Charles Carvalho of Advanced Computer Communications and Mostafa

Sherif of AT&T have been incorporated into this document. Special

thanks to Dory Leifer of University of Michigan for his contributions

to the resolution of fragmentation issues and Floyd Backes from DEC

and Laura Bridge from Timeplex for their contributions to the

bridging descriptions. This document could not have been completed

without the expertise of the IP over Large Public Data Networks

working group of the IETF.

1. Conventions and Acronyms

The following language conventions are used in the items of

specification in this document:

o Must, Shall or Mandatory -- the item is an absolute

requirement of the specification.

o Should or Recommended -- the item should generally be

followed for all but exceptional circumstances.

o May or Optional -- the item is truly optional and may be

followed or ignored according to the nee...