Re: (ASCEND) Pipeline 75, 2 channels, and ACO (fwd)

[Stephen Fisher <lithium@cia-g.com>]

On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Mark Eissler wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, MegaZone wrote:
> 
> > Once upon a time Mark Eissler shaped the electrons to say...
> > >What's going on? I'm connecting to a Livingston PM3 at the far end. Is the
> > >feature also reliant on DBA with an Ascend at the far end? If so (which I 
> > >suspect), then that's really getting retarded.

Yeah.

> > Correct.  Ascend units require MP+ or BACP on the other end.
> 
> So the Ascends do implement DBA properly then? And, I assume, the other
> units are using some kind of hack in order to implement it (i.e. not
> using BACP)? Or is BACP the proprietary part of Ascend's implementation? 

No, BACP is a standard defined in an RFC.  Ascend's own way to do it is
MP+ which is published in an informational rfc but is not a standard.
 
> > The Zyxel isn't the only one that doesn't need these - the Office Router
> > doesn't either.  Nor does the Bitsurfer.
> > 
> 
> Yeah, and probably the 3com TA, Farallon Netopia (erk!), Cisco 7xx?
> etc..... 

So which ones besides Pipelines *do* require a protocol such as BACP?
Any!?


 - Steve
  - Systems Manager
  - Community Internet Access, Inc.
  - Gallup and Grants, New Mexico


++ 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) Pipeline 75, 2 channels, and ACO (fwd)
• From: Mark Eissler <marke@bigendian.com>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: (ASCEND)56K
• Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) Pipeline 75, 2 channels, and ACO
• Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) Pipeline 75, 2 channels, and ACO (fwd)
• Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) Anyone have OSPF working CISCO<->MAX 4004 ?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread