From: Jack Heney (jheneyccie@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Nov 03 2000 - 00:15:21 GMT-3
>From: "Rogell, Dennis" <Dennis_Rogell@milgo.com>
>To: 'Jack Heney' <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: SR/TLB - problem & solution
>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:01:03 -0500
>
>Good deal Jack
>
>Dennis Rogell
>Email : dennis_rogell@milgocom
>Phone: (954) 426-2581
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jack Heney [SMTP:jheneyccie@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 00:09
> > To: Dennis_Rogell@milgo.com
> > Subject: RE: SR/TLB - problem & solution
> >
> > I think I have discovered my true problem...What I am trying to do is
> > impossible...According to http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/701/4.html
>you
> > can not translationally bridge routable protocols because they sometimes
> > carry MAC addresses in the data portion of the frame, and the data
>portion
> >
> > cannot be reliably converted from cannonical to non-cannonical and vice
> > versa. When I tested my SR/TLB configuration out with 2 PC's using
> > NetBEUI,
> > it worked fine. Thanks to all who have helped, and if anyone does know
>of
> > a
> > way to traslationally bridge IP, please let me know.
> > Thanks,
> > Jack
> >
> >
> > >From: "Rogell, Dennis" <Dennis_Rogell@milgo.com>
> > >To: 'Jack Heney ' <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>
> > >Subject: RE: SR/TLB - problem
> > >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 20:03:06 -0500
> > >
> > >Jack
> > >I will set this up in my lab tomorrow morning and let you know. Off the
> > top
> > >my head your debug stated duplicate ring errors so it sounds like it
> > could
> > >be in the translation. Why don't you take the ethernet mac address
> > >coonvert the bit swapping and see if it comes up with the proper
> > >conversion.I will check back with you tomorrow morning.
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Jack Heney
> > >To: jheneyccie@hotmail.com; Dennis_Rogell@milgo.com;
> > ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Sent: 11/01/2000 5:11 PM
> > >Subject: RE: SR/TLB - problem
> > >
> > >I seem to have further isolated my problem....I replaced HostA with
> > >another
> > >router (RtrC), and once this router was configured, the show rif
>command
> > >on
> > >RtrC showed the MAC address of RtrA (reversed due to media translation)
> > >and
> > >an accurate RIF (0890.004B.003C.0020)....At least I think this is an
> > >accurate RIF (it seeems to indicate that it uses ring 2 to bridge 12 to
> > >ring
> > >3 to bridge 11 to ring 4, which is what I think should happen).....To
> > >me,
> > >the fact that RtrC can learn RtrA's MAC and the appropriate RIF seems
>to
> > >
> > >indicate that I have the token ring portion of the network configured
> > >properly and that the translation works from TR to Ether.....Since I
> > >keep
> > >getting the "duplicate ring" error when I try to ping RtrC from RtrA, I
> > >think my problem lies somewhere in the translation from ethernet to
> > >token
> > >ring....When I debug arp, I don't get any encapsulation failed
>messages,
> > >I
> > >simply don't get any responses. Any ideas?
> > >jack
> > >
> > > >From: "Jack Heney" <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>
> > > >Reply-To: "Jack Heney" <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>
> > > >To: Dennis_Rogell@milgo.com, ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > >Subject: RE: SR/TLB
> > > >Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 21:05:17 GMT
> > > >
> > > >Oops....Yes it was a typo...RtrA has "bridge-group 1" and "bridge 1
> > > >protocol
> > > >ieee".
> > > >
> > > >I noticed something else interesting....When I try to ping RtrA from
> > >HostA,
> > > >I don't get the duplicate ring error message that I get when I ping
> > >from
> > > >RtrA to HostA.
> > > >
> > > >Any ideas?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>From: "Rogell, Dennis" <Dennis_Rogell@milgo.com>
> > > >>To: 'Jack Heney' <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>
> > > >>Subject: RE: SR/TLB
> > > >>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:04:18 -0500
> > > >>
> > > >>Jack
> > > >>On rtra I did not see a bridge-group statement is that a typo
> > > >>
> > > >>Dennis Rogell
> > > >>Email : dennis_rogell@milgocom
> > > >>Phone: (954) 426-2581
> > > >>
> > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > From: Jack Heney [SMTP:jheneyccie@hotmail.com]
> > > >> > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 12:35
> > > >> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > >> > Subject: SR/TLB
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I'm having trouble getting SR/TLB to work...Here's my config:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > RtrA--------------RtrB---------------HostA
> > > >> > ether token
> > > >> >
> > > >> > RtrA:
> > > >> > interface fastethernet 0/0
> > > >> > ip address 10.1.1.2 255.255.255.0
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > RtrB:
> > > >> > no ip routing
> > > >> > source-bridge ring-group 3
> > > >> > source-bridge transparent 3 4 11 1
> > > >> > interface ethernet 0/0
> > > >> > bridge-group 1
> > > >> > interface tokenring 0/0
> > > >> > source-bridge spanning 1
> > > >> > source-bridge 2 12 3
> > > >> > ring-speed 16
> > > >> > bridge 1 protocol ieee
> > > >> >
> > > >> > HostA has an IP address of 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
> > > >> >
> > > >> > My understanding is that the above configuration should cause
> > >traffic
> > > >>on
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > Token RIng network to be bridged to ring 3 (virtual-ring), which
> > >then
> > > >> > bridges it to pseudo-ring 4 (actually ethernet bridge-group 1).
> > > >>However,
> > > >> > pings do not seem to be able to cross the bridge.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > When I "debug source bridge" on RtrB and try to ping HostA from
> > >RtrA,
> > > >>this
> > > >> >
> > > >> > is the output (I also included the output of "show
>source-bridge"):
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 00:03:06: VRING: forward explorer, bn 12 trn 2,
> > >[C810.004B.003C.0020]
> > > >> > 00:03:06: VRING: forward pak (srn 3 bn 11 trn 2), src:
> > >8010.4b95.56ce
> > > >>dst:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 0030.
> > > >> > 8004.49e0, [0890.004B.003C.0020]
> > > >> > 00:03:06: SRB0: explorer enqueued (srn 2 bn 12 trn 3)
> > > >> > 00:03:06: SRB0: duplicate ring violation, s: 800c.0120.9207 d:
> > > >> > ffff.ffff.ffff ri
> > > >> > f: C810.004B.003C.0020
> > > >> > 00:03:08: VRING: forward explorer, bn 12 trn 2,
> > >[C810.004B.003C.0020]
> > > >> > 00:03:08: VRING: forward pak (srn 3 bn 11 trn 2), src:
> > >8010.4b95.56ce
> > > >>dst:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 0030.
> > > >> > 8004.49e0, [0890.004B.003C.0020]
> > > >> > 00:03:08: SRB0: explorer enqueued (srn 2 bn 12 trn 3)
> > > >> > 00:03:08: SRB0: duplicate ring violation, s: 800c.0120.9207 d:
> > > >> > ffff.ffff.ffff ri
> > > >> > f: C810.004B.003C.0020
> > > >> > 00:03:10: VRING: forward explorer, bn 12 trn 2,
> > >[C810.004B.003C.0020]
> > > >> > 00:03:10: VRING: forward pak (srn 3 bn 11 trn 2), src:
> > >8010.4b95.56ce
> > > >>dst:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 0030.
> > > >> > 8004.49e0, [0890.004B.003C.0020]
> > > >> > 00:03:10: SRB0: explorer enqueued (srn 2 bn 12 trn 3)
> > > >> > 00:03:10: SRB0: duplicate ring violation, s: 800c.0120.9207 d:
> > > >> > ffff.ffff.ffff ri
> > > >> > f: C810.004B.003C.0020
> > > >> > 00:03:12: VRING: forward explorer, bn 12 trn 2,
> > >[C810.004B.003C.0020]
> > > >> > 00:03:12: VRING: forward pak (srn 3 bn 11 trn 2), src:
> > >8010.4b95.56ce
> > > >>dst:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 0030.
> > > >> > 8004.49e0, [0890.004B.003C.0020]
> > > >> > 00:03:12: SRB0: explorer enqueued (srn 2 bn 12 trn 3)
> > > >> > 00:03:12: SRB0: duplicate ring violation, s: 800c.0120.9207 d:
> > > >> > ffff.ffff.ffff ri
> > > >> > f: C810.004B.003C.0020
> > > >> > 00:03:14: VRING: forward explorer, bn 12 trn 2,
> > >[C810.004B.003C.0020]
> > > >> > 00:03:14: VRING: forward pak (srn 3 bn 11 trn 2), src:
> > >8010.4b95.56ce
> > > >>dst:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 0030.
> > > >> > 8004.49e0, [0890.004B.003C.0020]
> > > >> > 00:03:14: SRB0: explorer enqueued (srn 2 bn 12 trn 3)
> > > >> > 00:03:14: SRB0: duplicate ring violation, s: 800c.0120.9207 d:
> > > >> > ffff.ffff.ffff ri
> > > >> > f: C810.004B.003C.0020
> > > >> >
> > > >> > RtrB#sh source-bridge
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Local Interfaces: receive transmit
> > > >> > srn bn trn r p s n max hops cnt cnt
> > > >> > drops
> > > >> > To0/0 2 12 3 * f 7 7 7 5 7
> > > >>5
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Global RSRB Parameters:
> > > >> > TCP Queue Length maximum: 100
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Ring Group 3:
> > > >> > No TCP peername set, TCP transport disabled
> > > >> > Maximum output TCP queue length, per peer: 100
> > > >> > Rings:
> > > >> > bn: 12 rn: 2 local ma: 400b.5d1b.f681 TokenRing0/0
> > >fwd:
> > > >>0
> > > >> > bn: 11 rn: 4 locvrt ma: 400b.5d1b.f601 Bridge-group 1
> > >fwd:
> > > >>5
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Explorers: ------- input ------- ------- output
>-------
> > > >> > spanning all-rings total spanning all-rings
> > > >>total
> > > >> > To0/0 0 0 0 7 0
> > >
> > > >>7
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Explorer fastswitching enabled
> > > >> > Local switched: 1 flushed 0 max Bps 38400
> > > >> >
> > > >> > rings inputs bursts throttles
>output
> > > >>drops
> > > >> > To0/0 0 0 0
> > >
> > > >>0
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It looks like the RtrB recognizes that Ring 3 (the virtual-ring)
>is
> > > >> > attached
> > > >> > to the actual token ring (2) via bridge 12 and attached to the
> > > >>pseudo-ring
> > > >> >
> > > >> > (4) via bridge 11, which is what I anticipated. It also seems to
> > >be
> > > >> > forwarding the pings from RtrA to ring 3, but not from ring 3 to
> > >ring
> > > >>2:
> > > >> > bn: 12 rn: 2 local ma: 400b.5d1b.f681 TokenRing0/0
> > >fwd:
> > > >>0
> > > >> > bn: 11 rn: 4 locvrt ma: 400b.5d1b.f601 Bridge-group 1
> > >fwd:
> > > >>5
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I can't figure out what the "duplicate ring violation" is
>referring
> > >to,
> > > >> > because I made sure that I used different ring numbers for the
> > >actual
> > > >> > token
> > > >> > ring, the pseudo-ring, and the virtual-ring, but I'm guessing
>this
> > >is
> > > >> > somehow related to my lack of connectivity.
> > > >> > Can anyone shed some light on this situation for me?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > Jack
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:40 GMT-3