Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay (RFC1490)
Original Publication Date: 1993-Jul-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-12
Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)
T. Bradley: AUTHOR [+3]
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.
Network Working Group T. Bradley
Request for Comments: 1490 Wellfleet Communications, Inc.
Obsoletes: 1294 C. Brown
Wellfleet Communications, Inc.
Ascom Timeplex, Inc.
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.
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.
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 needs of the
All drawings in this document are drawn with the left-most bit as the
high order bit for transmission. For example, the dawings might be
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 bits
| flag (7E h...