From: Jack Heney (jheneyccie@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 23:35:37 GMT-3
That will work fine....The virtual-ring doesn't even have to be the same
between the two peer routers - It is there so that all remote hosts appear
to be attached to the same ring....The ring-list and corresponding reference
in the remote-peer command is used to indicate which interface traffic from
the indicated remote-peer is allowed to go out....Think of it almost like
vlans, where the dlsw connections are a trunk, the ring-list indicates which
interfaces are in which vlan, and the remote-peer command indicates which
traffic sources are in which vlan.
hth,
Jack
>From: bhackney@netstarnetworks.com (Bede Hackney)
>Reply-To: bhackney@netstarnetworks.com (Bede Hackney)
>To: "group study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: re: DLSW Ring-lists
>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:28:56 +1100
>
>Hi all,
>
>I'm wondering if anyone can clarify the following for me...
>
>If I am using ring-lists to direct traffic from different remote dlsw peers
>on to local token-ring interfaces do I need to define separate
>virtual-rings
>for each ring-list or can I just configure the source-bridge side of it
>with
>one virtual ring as usual???
>
>That is, can I just use the following on the central router:
>
>source-bridge ring-group 100
>
>dlsw ring-list 1 rings 1
>dlsw ring-list 2 rings 2
>dlsw local-peer peer-id 1.1.1.1
>dlsw remote 1 tcp 1.1.1.2
>dlsw remote 2 tcp 1.1.1.3
>
>int tokenring 0
>source-bridge 1 1 100
>
>int tokenring 1
>source-bridge 2 1 100
>
>
>Or.... do I need the following:
>
>source-bridge ring-group 100
>source-bridge ring-group 101
>
>dlsw ring-list 1 rings 1
>dlsw ring-list 2 rings 2
>dlsw local-peer peer-id 1.1.1.1
>dlsw remote 1 tcp 1.1.1.2
>dlsw remote 2 tcp 1.1.1.3
>
>int tokenring 0
>source-bridge 1 1 100
>
>int tokenring 1
>source-bridge 2 1 101
>
>
>Thanks heaps,
>Bede.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:42 GMT-3