From: Murphy, Brennan (Brennan_Murphy@xxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Feb 12 2001 - 17:17:22 GMT-3
I downloaded ccprep's white paper on building a home
ccie lab because there is a section that
shows you how to make a 4 port frame switch out of
back to back 2501s...this is desirable if you
dont have a 2520. In my case, I have alot of 2503s
but no 2520.
I am using the supplied configs below. I can't seem to
get the frame switching to work across the tunnel.
The frame switching between ser 0 and ser 1 on
the first router works well.....but the switching
that much use the tunnelling does not work.
Has anyone else had any trouble getting these configs
to work? I went ahead and appended them to this email.
I'm basically trying to get everything working with
point to point subinterfaces. no luck so far. The
DLCIs come up INACTIVE.
Thanks for any suggestions/help!
-bm
Cisco 2501 # 1
!
version 11.2
service udp-small-servers
service tcp-small-servers
!
hostname frame
!
!
frame-relay switching
!
interface Tunnel0
no ip address
tunnel source Ethernet0
tunnel destination 192.168.1.1
!
interface Ethernet0
ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0
!
interface Serial0
no ip address
encapsulation frame-relay
clockrate 1000000
frame-relay lmi-type ansi
frame-relay intf-type dce
frame-relay route 112 interface Serial1 211
frame-relay route 113 interface Tunnel0 311
frame-relay route 114 interface Tunnel0 411
!
interface Serial1
no ip address
encapsulation frame-relay
clockrate 1000000
frame-relay lmi-type ansi
frame-relay intf-type dce
frame-relay route 211 interface Serial0 112
!
no ip classless
!
line con 0
line aux 0
line vty 0 4
login
!
end
Cisco 2501 # 2
!
version 11.2
no service password-encryption
no service udp-small-servers
no service tcp-small-servers
!
hostname frame2
!
!
frame-relay switching
!
interface Tunnel0
no ip address
tunnel source Ethernet0
tunnel destination 192.168.1.2
!
interface Ethernet0
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
!
interface Serial0
no ip address
encapsulation frame-relay
clockrate 1000000
frame-relay lmi-type ansi
frame-relay intf-type dce
frame-relay route 311 interface Tunnel0 113
!
interface Serial1
no ip address
encapsulation frame-relay
clockrate 1000000
frame-relay lmi-type ansi
frame-relay intf-type dce
frame-relay route 411 interface Tunnel0 114
!
no ip classless
!
!
line con 0
line aux 0
line vty 0 4
login
!
end
-----Original Message-----
From: achew@unmail.org [mailto:achew@unmail.org]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 3:02 PM
To: Emanuele Solazzi; Peter Simmons; Kevin Baumgartner;
dp595@optonline.net
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Any limitations with Catalyst 2901 as opposed to Cat5000?
2901/2926 yes - note older CatOS allows it only as pps while never versions
allow it as a percentage as well. Guess this is one more of the reasons to
avoid the switches based on the Catalyst 4000 CatOS. Oh on 5000s, some
blades may not support some functions - I doubt if broadcast control is
available on the older 10BT blades. Do a "show port capabilities" to figure
out what's supported. 5213As for the 5000s can't do 802.1q, they only do
ISL trunking... can't remember for sure but I think even the Sup II 10/100
ports don't support 802.1q.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emanuele Solazzi" <Emanuele2@italy2000.com>
To: "Peter Simmons" <psimmons@netcomuk.co.uk>; "Kevin Baumgartner"
<kbaumgar@cisco.com>; <dp595@optonline.net>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Any limitations with Catalyst 2901 as opposed to Cat5000?
> does it support the command :
> set port broadcast ?
> Because my 2948G doesn't support it
>
> bye
> Emanuele
>
> ----------------------------
> Emanuele Solazzi
> Cisco Certified System Instructor 21747
> CCNP/CCDP 1.0 - 2.0 + Security + Voice
> MCSE+I
> emanuele@solazzi.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Simmons" <psimmons@netcomuk.co.uk>
> To: "Kevin Baumgartner" <kbaumgar@cisco.com>; <dp595@optonline.net>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Any limitations with Catalyst 2901 as opposed to Cat5000?
>
>
> > Kevin,
> >
> > Sorry to disagree, but I've got a 2901 right here, and it's running the
> same
> > CatOS (XDI Interface) as any other Supervisor I module on a 5x00 series
> > switch. It's upgradeable to 5.x CatOS, and supports all the same
> > functionality as a 5x00 switch with a SUP I module. (I work with 5500
and
> > 6500 Kit every day).
> >
> > Maybe you're thinking of the 2900 XL series, which don't run CatOS
> software.
> >
> > The only limtiation with a SUP I is lack of Etherchannel really,
although
> > things like FDDI/ATM LANE/RSM/VIP etc. do require the 5000/5500 series
> > chassis, but these aren't Lab material AFAIK. (Although theroetically
> > anything COULD be in the Lab by the time I get there!)
> >
> > If I had the money, I'd have a 5505, SUP III and various modules, but
> > beggars can't be choosers, as they say! A 2901 is, in my humble opinion,
a
> > reasonable substitute given the current published requirements.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Pete S.
> >
> > June 21/22 Brussels
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Baumgartner <kbaumgar@cisco.com>
> > To: dp595@optonline.net <dp595@optonline.net>
> > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Date: 11 February 2001 20:49
> > Subject: Re: Any limitations with Catalyst 2901 as opposed to Cat5000?
> >
> >
> > > They are not the same OS. The commands are quite different.
> > >But the 2900 can do most of what you need I think. You can setup
> > >VLANs, trunking, and VTP. And if you need to get experience with
> > >the 5000 rent some time.
> > >
> > > Kevin
> > >
> > >>
> > >> If I need a switch to study for CCIE are there any limitations of
> buying
> > =
> > >> a Catalyst 2901 as opposed to a Catalyst 5000?
> > >> They have the same OS and I won't need to upgrade.
> > >> Any advice is appreciated. =20
> > >> Thanks.
> > >>
> > >> Dan Pontrelli
> > >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:28:46 GMT-3