From: Todd Carswell (acarswell@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Feb 21 2002 - 19:40:23 GMT-3
Very true! I did not elaborate on my point the way I should have. You MUST
have at least 1 frame-relay map statement OR an interface-dlci statement on
the frame-relay connected interface.
IF you're in a lab scenario where you are instructed to use only 1 frame-map
statement per interface, though, you can provide connectivity throughout
your network using a route map. Here's an example...
You only have 1 frame-relay map statement. It provides connectivity with a
hub. To reach other networks connected to the hub, you can use a route
map...
access-list 101 permit ip any 100.10.0.0 0.0.255.255
access-list 101 permit ip any host 121.20.1.1
route-map 10 permit 10
match ip address 101
set ip next-hop 192.100.2.1
The network 100.10.0.0 and the host 121.20.1.1 can be "seen" by the hub.
----- Original Message -----
From: <RSiddappa@NECBNS.com>
To: <acarswell@nc.rr.com>; <neiby@ureach.com>; <jim.phillipo@guardent.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 5:26 PM
Subject: RE: Frame map vs intfc DLCI
>
> But how is the DLCi asssocited with partular sub-interafce which is
> Multi-point.
>
> Use the Intf-dlci command under multi-point subinterafce.
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Carswell [mailto:acarswell@nc.rr.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 4:21 PM
> To: Siddappa, Rajeev; neiby@ureach.com; jim.phillipo@guardent.com;
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Frame map vs intfc DLCI
>
>
> If you are forbidden from using the frame-relay map statement, you can
> overcome the problem in layer 3 by using route maps to set the ip next-hop
> address.
>
> Todd Carswell
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <RSiddappa@NECBNS.com>
> To: <neiby@ureach.com>; <jim.phillipo@guardent.com>;
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 4:37 PM
> Subject: RE: Frame map vs intfc DLCI
>
>
> > What do u do when they ask in the lab, do not use fram-relay map
> statement.
> > How ill u configure a DLCi for Multipoint interface. ( Do not need to
> worry
> > about physical, since DLCI will be assigned directly to the physical
> > interface)
> >
> > My 2 cents..
> >
> > R.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Neiberger [mailto:neiby@ureach.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 11:59 AM
> > To: jim.phillipo@guardent.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Frame map vs intfc DLCI
> >
> >
> > It's very interesting that you mention this today. I'd never,
> > ever, seen anyone use the frame-relay interface-dlci command on
> > multipoint interfaces until last night when another list member
> > who shall remain nameless (Tim Ouellette) called me about this
> > exact issue.
> >
> > We had a hub router configured with a multipoint subinterface
> > using two frame-relay interface-dlci commands instead of frame
> > maps. At first I thought this wouldn't work at all but it did,
> > somewhat. The command reference says appears to say that it
> > ought to work in conjunction with inverse ARP.
> >
> > However, it didn't seem to be stable and behaved erratically.
> > When we removed those two statements and replaced them with two
> > frame maps things settled down quite nicely.
> >
> > Specifically, we were having issues with EIGRP. It seemed to
> > work, but the output of show ip eigrp neighbors indicated that
> > things might not be working as they ought to be. Sorry, I
> > don't have that info available here at work but if Tim reads
> > this might be able to post the exact results.
> >
> > I've always been under the impression that we only used the
> > frame-relay interface-dlci command on point-to-point
> > subinterfaces so I've always used frame maps in all other cases.
> >
> > What do you all think about this issue? Is there a time to use
> > one or the other on multipoint interfaces? Any gotchas we need
> > to look out for?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:30 GMT-3