From: Nick Shah (nshah@connect.com.au)
Date: Fri Sep 06 2002 - 20:03:10 GMT-3
The cost specified on a 'local peer' via dlsw remote-peer command, takes
precedence over cost specified by the 'remote-peer' by using the local-peer
command.
So in ur case R6 will disregard the cost it is learning from the remote
peer, but it will 'assert' the cost it has specified, and hence prefer R2.
The other confusing aspect is that if you look at show dlsw capa, it will
still show the cost specified by the remote-peer via its local-peer command.
So you actually have to do a show run to find what is the 'actual cost'
If this sounds confusing :) refer to this url...
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ibsw/ibdlsw/tech/dls3_rg.htm
rgds
Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: Warner, Thomas S <thomas.s.warner@lmco.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 8:06 AM
Subject: DLSW local peer cost vs. remote peer cost
> All-
>
> DLSW allows the specification of a cost associated with each of the DLSW
> remote peers (dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp x.x.x.x cost y) in addition to
allowing
> the remote peers themselves to have a local cost (dlsw local-peer peer-id
> x.x.x.x cost y) specified. The default cost is 3 and the lowest cost is
> always preferred in the event that unequal configured costs are present.
I
> have searched the DOC CD and searched portions of the archives but I am
> having trouble finding out which value takes precedence - local or remote.
> Consider the following scenario:
>
> R6 needs to access resources that are accessible via both R1 and R2. R1
and
> R2 both have an Ethernet interface that are part of the dlsw bridge group
> with the resources attached to it.
>
> R6
> / \
> / \
> / \
> R1 R2
>
>
>
> R6
>
> dlsw local-peer peer-id 6.6.6.6
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 2.2.2.2 cost 1 (I prefer R2)
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 1.1.1.1 cost 2
>
> R1
>
> dlsw local-peer peer-id 1.1.1.1 (default cost of 3)
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 6.6.6.6
> dlsw bridge-group 1
>
> R2
>
> dlsw local-peer peer-id 2.2.2.2 cost 4
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 6.6.6.6
> dlsw bridge-group 1
>
> So, will R6 prefer R2 because in R6's REMOTE peer statements, the cost is
> lower for R2 than for R1 (1 vs 2) - or will R6 prefer R1 because R1's
> LOCALLY configured cost is 3 which is lower than R2's LOCALLY configured
> cost which is 4? Which takes precedence for circuit establishment - local
> or remote? I would test this but I don't have access to another computer
or
> a lab where I'm located right now.
>
> Let me emphasize that this is not a real life scenario so please don't
bash
> me for setting something up like this. I came up with this question based
> on my readings from the doc cd under the DLSW Design Guide
> <http://127.0.0.1:8080/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/idg4/nd2007.htm#xtocid209622>
>
> Thanks all,
>
>
> Tom Warner
> Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
> Computing and Network Services
> email: mailto:thomas.s.warner@lmco.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:45 GMT-3