From: Jack Heney (jheneyccie@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Nov 03 2000 - 15:02:44 GMT-3
I can't figure out what the other problem could have been...The SR/TLB
worked fine for NetBeui. Any ideas?
Jack
>From: George Spahl <georges@iglou.com>
>To: "Jack Heney" <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>,ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: SR/TLB - problem & solution
>Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 06:51:35 -0500
>
>Jack,
>While it's true that SR/TLB doesn't work perfectly, that is, not for every
>protocol, the ones that it doesn't work for are few and far between (and
>ping isn't one of those). It actually looks inside the packets of some
>protocols and converts the embedded MAC address(es). I believe there must
>be some other problem. Just my two cents.
>George
>
>At 03:15 AM 11/3/00 +0000, Jack Heney wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>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 - 08:25:41 GMT-3