background image
Frame Relay Topologies 259
Figure 9-3 depicts LMI communication between the Frame Relay switch and the CPE router.
Figure 9-3
LMI Exchange
Frame Relay Topologies
Frame Relay supports connectivity of remote sites through one of three topological strategies.
Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, as pointed out in the following list:
·
Hub and spoke--Also known as the star topology, this is the dominant method of
deploying Frame Relay. It consists of a single central site acting as a connection point for
all remote offices. Routing between two satellite offices is accomplished through the
central site. Routing through the central site tends to be the low-cost solution; however, it
is also the least redundant (that is, fault tolerant) strategy.
·
Full mesh--Also called "full mess" due to its resemblance to a spider web, this topology
has a large number of connections and is very expensive to operate; however, it is the most
fault tolerant. Because each site is connected to every other site, the number of
connections can be large and expensive. The number of connections that are required is
derived through the following formula, where n is the number of devices you wish to
connect: n(n ­ 1)
ч 2. For example, if you have 20 routers to connect, you would need
20(20 ­ 1)
ч 2 = 190 connections to provide a VC from each site to every other site.
·
Partial mesh--This implementation deploys hub and spoke with redundancy. With this
implementation, the cost of full mesh is avoided, and the lack of fault tolerance of hub and
spoke is minimized. Although a central site is utilized, redundant connections are installed
between critical sites. In essence, it is possible to create a backup central site. This is
particularly useful in networks in which delay reductions are necessary because getting to
a destination without traversing a central router can decrease delay significantly.
Figure 9-4 depicts the three topologies.
CSU/DSU
PVC
DLCI
16=Active
18=Inactive
DLCI=16
DLCI=18
PVC
Keepalives