<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: migration from channel traffic to qllc traffic in Server Networking</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/server-networking/migration-from-channel-traffic-to-qllc-traffic/m-p/64190#M399</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;A direct channel connection can operate at a theoretical speed of 17 MBytes/sec. This is extremely fast and is unlikely to be matched by anything close in a serially attached X25 connection and the overheads of the X25, QLLC headers will add to the problem. It is more usual to migrate from an X25 network to a CIP for greater bandwidth! &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2002 05:29:35 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>rsissons</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2002-03-22T05:29:35Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>migration from channel traffic to qllc traffic</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/server-networking/migration-from-channel-traffic-to-qllc-traffic/m-p/64189#M398</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have to migrate my sna traffic, now direct attach to channel Escon with cpa interface, to qllc with x25 interface to 3745 controller conected to a serial interface of  the router.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have to know what x25 bandwidth may I reserve. I can see the cpa traffic ( with  "show interface channel " in the router. The question is what is the relation between 2 kind of traffic. What overhead add the x25 encapsulation?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:59:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/server-networking/migration-from-channel-traffic-to-qllc-traffic/m-p/64189#M398</guid>
      <dc:creator>MARCELO MATURO</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-03-19T13:59:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: migration from channel traffic to qllc traffic</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/server-networking/migration-from-channel-traffic-to-qllc-traffic/m-p/64190#M399</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;A direct channel connection can operate at a theoretical speed of 17 MBytes/sec. This is extremely fast and is unlikely to be matched by anything close in a serially attached X25 connection and the overheads of the X25, QLLC headers will add to the problem. It is more usual to migrate from an X25 network to a CIP for greater bandwidth! &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2002 05:29:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/server-networking/migration-from-channel-traffic-to-qllc-traffic/m-p/64190#M399</guid>
      <dc:creator>rsissons</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-03-22T05:29:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: migration from channel traffic to qllc traffic</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/server-networking/migration-from-channel-traffic-to-qllc-traffic/m-p/64191#M400</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I agree with you, but I am studying the qllc link only for a disaster recovery path.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:31:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/server-networking/migration-from-channel-traffic-to-qllc-traffic/m-p/64191#M400</guid>
      <dc:creator>MARCELO MATURO</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-03-22T13:31:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

