From: Jack Heney (jheneyccie@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 22:28:41 GMT-3
I think you might have that backwards...The non-border routers have to have
a connection to the border (typically promiscuous) in order for the
peer-on-demand to work....Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I've always
understood it.
Jack
>From: Justin Menga <Justin.Menga@computerland.co.nz>
>Reply-To: Justin Menga <Justin.Menga@computerland.co.nz>
>To: "'Sam Munzani'" <sam@munzani.com>, Bill Dellamar <wdellamar@yahoo.com>,
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: dlsw
>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:44:46 +1300
>
>It is not a good idea to compare promiscuous and peer-on-demand-defaults.
>
>Basically, for the promiscuous to work, peer-on-demand must work.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sam Munzani [mailto:sam@munzani.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, 7 November 2000 3:40 a.m.
>To: Bill Dellamar; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: dlsw
>
>
>Big difference.
>
>1. Promiscous
>Ans: It sits idle and waits for a date. Doesn't propose from it's end. If
>some remote end asks it out it will go.
>
>2. Peer On Demmand.
>ANS: The remote guy will not ask out to the date waiting idle unless their
>co-workers will push him to ask.
>
>I think you got the picture.
>
>Sam
>
>
> > Could someone explain the difference between
> > promiscous and peer-on-demand-defaults.
> >
> > Promiscous - will accept connections without defining
> > remote-peers.
> >
> > Peer-on-demand-defaults - is a non-configured
> > remote-peer that was connected because of an LLC2
> > session established through a border peer DLSw+
> > network.
> >
> > Aren't these the same thing? Or won't promiscous
> > accept a connection from a border peer?
> >
> > Any input would be appreciated.
> > Thanks,
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:42 GMT-3