From: Jim Brown (Jim.Brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Nov 01 2001 - 18:45:12 GMT-3
In a production environment would it not make more sense to tie the local
peer to a single physical interface if there is only one interface
participating in DLSW?
If it is tied to the physical interface, when it goes down then so does the
DLSW connection.
If it is tied to a loopback and the physical interface is down, DLSW traffic
will travel to the remote end only to be dropped.
It seems to me tying it to the physical interface would conserve bandwidth
during interface failures.
-----Original Message-----
From: Geir Jensen [mailto:geir@hfk.vgs.no]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:16 PM
To: fwells12; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: DLSW peer question
I always use the loopback, it's definately more stable than the
alternatives. Geir Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: fwells12
Sent: Thu 11/1/2001 9:34 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Cc:
Subject: DLSW peer question
OK, you have a router which has more than one LAN interface it needs
DLSW
traffic forwarded from, let's say e0 and t0. It also has a loopback
int with
ip ad 172.16.10.1/24. The ip's of the e0 and t0 interfaces are
172.16.20.1/24
and 172.16.30.1/24 respectively. What ip address is the best
practice to use
for your dlsw local-peer peer-id statement?
Cheers
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 06:45:00 GMT-3