Re: (ASCEND) POTS bonding (fwd)

To: MegaZone <megazone@megazone.org>, ascend-users@bungi.com (Ascend Users)
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) POTS bonding (fwd)
From: "Kevin A. Smith" <kevin@ascend.com>
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 11:24:36 -0700
In-Reply-To: <199805071621.JAA08414@shell4.ba.best.com>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

At 09:21 AM 5/7/98 -0700, MegaZone wrote:
>Once upon a time Phillip Vandry shaped the electrons to say...
>>The last time I read the spec (RFC1717, I think there's a superseding RFC
>>now), supporting incongruous links in the same bundle was left as a
>>problem for the implementor. Implementors are encouraged to use a bit of
>
>RFC 1990 is the current MP RFC.  Hasn't changed that though.  Most vendors
>either don't support it, or strongly discourage it.  Isn't a lot of demand
>for mismatched bonding anyway.

There was a lot of discussion about this in the past and justifying why we
should support it - I have not yet seen a single example of it's being used
(other than different modem speeds)....


Kevin 
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

References:

Re: (ASCEND) POTS bonding (fwd)

From: MegaZone <megazone@megazone.org>

Prev by Date: RE: (ASCEND) Telnet session disconnects
Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) POTS bonding
Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) POTS bonding (fwd)
Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) POTS bonding (fwd)
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread