[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ISDN digest 62
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: ISDN digest 62
- From: rberger@InterNex.NET (Robert Berger)
- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 15:27:21 -0800
- Cc: Robert Wade Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-Reply-To: email@example.com "ISDN digest 62" (Feb 6, 11:48am)
- References: <199602061648.LAA24088@essential.essential.org>
> Why can't they do all this under the current D channel protocal?
You would use the current D channel protocol (x.25) as the carrier for TCP/IP.
The idea is to take advantage of the infrastructure and code that already can
handle x.25 over the D channel, but add capabilities to the PPP Multilink
code to start off by utilizing the "permanently connected" D channel/x.25 link
to at least allow the remote site to respond to web clicks if not email, etc.
Once a click is recieved, the remote site would bring up the B channel[s] to
handle the higher volume traffic. Thus the remote site, connected by ISDN to
net would look like its permanently connected, but not utilize switch/trunck
resources just sitting waiting for hits.
I've proposed this to several CPE vendors and RBOCs. Ascend is considering
adding something like this to MP+.
Robert J. Berger - CTO / VP of Engineering
InterNex Information Services, Inc. 2302 Walsh Rd. Santa Clara, CA 95051
Voice: 408-327-2290 Fax: 408-496-5484
The future's already arrived - it's just not evenly distributed yet.
-- William Gibson --