From: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi (mamoor@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Apr 09 2002 - 06:42:49 GMT-3
Please have a look at the question once again, What Nic wants was if we dont
make r2 a border peer and just r1 peering r2, and r2 peering r3 , and nt r1
peering r3. and there is no border. then there will be no dlsw connectivity
between r1 and r3 as dlsw works on p-t-p.
-Mamoor
----- Original Message -----
From: Lupi, Guy <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com>
To: 'Ahmed Mamoor Amimi ' <mamoor@ieee.org>; 'Nicolai Gersbo Solling '
<nicolai@cisco.com>; 'CCIE ' <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 5:47 AM
Subject: RE: DLSW - Another question...this time in colour...
> As far as I have seen, you can have just r1 and r3 as dlsw tcp peers, that
> should work with no problem. If r2 has no need to be in the dlsw
> transaction, then any dlsw traffic between r1 and r3 should look like
> regular IP traffic to r2, essentially making it another hop. R2 would not
> have to be aware of the dlsw at all. Isn't this the way that border
peering
> really works anyway? All r2 is going to do is notify r1 of the
availability
> on r3, and then r1 will set up a session with r3 directly, across r2. Or
> maybe I don't understand the question.......
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi
> To: Nicolai Gersbo Solling; CCIE
> Sent: 4/8/2002 7:01 PM
> Subject: Re: DLSW - Another question...this time in colour...
>
> U can do this .... i have tried every option of it but unluckily dlsw
> only
> works on p-to-p. It will not route ur dlsw connection from r1 to r3 as
> r2 as
> a transit. nope. !! .... u have to make a border peer for this on r2
> with
> promiscous on every router.
>
> -Mamoor
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nicolai Gersbo Solling <nicolai@cisco.com>
> To: CCIE <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 7:05 PM
> Subject: DLSW - Another question...this time in colour...
>
>
> > Hi there Guys...
> >
> > Well...It is actually not in colour, but what will a man not do to
> drag
> > attention...
> >
> > Anyway...I have a problem with DLSW...
> >
> > I wan't to have full connectivity between Ethernet, Ring1, Ring 2 for
> > bridged traffic...
> >
> > I have the following Setup
> >
> >
> >
> > Etherenet--R1-----DLSW-----R2-----DLSW----R3--Ring2
> > |
> > |
> > Ring 1
> >
> > The routers have the following loopbacks:
> > 1.1.1.1=R1
> > 2.2.2.2=R2
> > 3.3.3.3=R3
> >
> > So far I have the following configured...
> >
> > R1:
> >
> > dlsw local-peer peer-id 1.1.1.1 group 1 promiscous
> > dlsw bridge 1
> >
> > Int ethernet0
> > bridge-group1
> >
> > R2:
> > dlsw local peer peer-id 2.2.2.2 group 1 border
> > dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 1.1.1.1
> > dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 3.3.3.3
> >
> > source-bridge ring-group 201
> >
> > int TokenRing 1
> > source-bridge 1 1 201
> > source-bridge spanning
> >
> > R3:
> > dlsw local-peer peer-id 3.3.3.3 group 1 promiscous
> >
> > source-bridge ring-group 200
> >
> > int TokenRing 1
> > source-bridge 2 1 200
> > source-bridge spanning
> >
> > I got the above config to work, but I have one big question...
> >
> > The way that the border group command works is that R2 caches
> reachability
> > information for R1 and R3 - When R1 sends out an explorer frame
> regarding
> a
> > machine, mac-address, netbios-name, whatever... This will be sent to
> R2,
> > which replies back and tells R1 - Connect to R3 on this IP
> address...This
> > sets up a peer connection from R1 to R3...
> >
> > Is my understanding correct?
> >
> > Now...here is my question...(finally)
> >
> > Is there any way to get the connection from R1 to flow over R2 and
> then to
> > R3?
> > I wan't to limit my number of DLSW peers in the network, so could it
> be
> done
> > so that the traffic from R1 flows to R2, which then forwards to R3?
> >
> > Any ideas, or does DLSW require point-2-point connections?
> >
> > Nic
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:03 GMT-3