From: Prakash H Somani (pdsccie@rediffmail.com)
Date: Fri Sep 20 2002 - 10:51:53 GMT-3
Hi,
Thanks...I agree..misconcept.
regards...Prakash
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 Mingzhou Nie wrote :
>prom will not work on direct or lite. The idea behind them is
>mapping
>the dlsw traffic into layer 2 dlci, not IP/TCP.
>
>Ming
>
>--- Prakash H Somani <pdsccie@rediffmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > There is one more issue also regarding this...
> >
> > R2 is connected to R5 on P-T-M subinterface. now at R2 I
>have
> > configured dlsw light. (With Frame-relay <dlci> and
>Frame-relay
> > map llc command) and on R5 i have configured promiscus...
> >
> > The peers are never coming up why ?
> >
> > regards....Prakash
> > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 Mingzhou Nie wrote :
> > >beda,
> > >
> > >dlsw direct will not work on any type of subinterfaces but
>main
> > >interface. dlsw lite will work on subinterfaces as well as
>main
> > >interface. With p-to-p interface, no "frame map llc2 <dlci>"
>is
> > >needed.
> > >
> >
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200204/threads.html
> > >search on "DSLW direct encap --Peer disconnected"
> > >
> > >Ming
> > >
> > >--- beda jain <bpjain@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > does Dlsw lite work in frame-relay multipoint interface
>or
> > >not.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Beda
> > > >
> > > > At 10:17 AM 9/17/2002 -0700, Mingzhou Nie wrote:
> > > > >donny,
> > > > >
> > > > >this question has been asked several times in the past.
>I'm
> > > > resending
> > > > >my personal notes again.
> > > > >
> > > > >****
> > > > >- encapsulation: watch out direct encap and llc2(dlsw
>lite)
> > >encap.
> > > > both
> > > > >reference individual dlci, but the first one needs
> > >"pass-thru"
> > > > option
> > > > >at the end and map dlci to dlsw, vs. the latter one
>doesn't
> > >use
> > > > >"pass-thru" and map dlci to llc2. direct encap only works
>on
> > >main
> > > > >interface. and direct encap doesn't work with backup
>peer.
> > >you can
> > > > not
> > > > >configure ip address in "dlsw local-peer" statement.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ibsw/ibdlsw/tech/dls3_rg.htm
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/idg4/nd2007.htm#xtocid31
> > > >
> > >
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200201/msg00583.html
> >
> > > >
> > >
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200111/msg00784.html
> >
> > > >
> > >
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200201/msg00945.html
> >
> > > > >
> > > > >****
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >--- Chris Hugo <chrishugo@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Remote Peer stays the same with both.Just the map
> > >statements will
> > > > > > differ
> > > > > > frame-relay map LLC2 is "DLSW Lite" --Which has
>local
> > > > acknowledgment
> > > > > > frame-relay map DLSW is Direct Encapsulation--Which
>does
> > >not have
> > > > > > local acknowledgment
> > > > > > I'm sure others will add to the post. But here is
>some
> > >before I
> > > > sleep
> > > > > > :)
> > > > > > chris hugo
> > > > > > Donny MATEO wrote: Hi Group,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I need help to clarify what is the difference
>between
> > >these two
> > > > > > configs for DLSW direct
> > > > > > encapsulation :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > dlsw remote-peer 0 frame-relay interface serial 0
> > > > > > int s0
> > > > > > frame-relay map llc2 131
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and
> > > > > >
> > > > > > dlsw remote-peer 0 frame-relay interface serial 0
>131
> > > > > > int s0
> > > > > > frame-relay map dlsw 131
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Solie says to use the latter for a multipoint
>interface. I
> > >tried
> > > > the
> > > > > > latter, but the state seems to
> > > > > > stay at disconnect. If I add the statement frame-relay
>map
> > >llc2
> > > > 131,
> > > > > > then it would become connect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any clue ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > tks.
> > > > > > Donny
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This message is for information purposes only and
>its
> > >content
> > > > > > should not be construed as an offer, or solicitation
>of an
> > >offer,
> > > > > > to buy or sell any banking or financial instruments
>or
> > >services
> > > > > > and no representation or warranty is given in respect
>of
> > >its
> > > > > > accuracy, completeness or fairness. The material is
> > >subject
> > > > > > to change without notice. You should take your own
> > >independent
> > > > > > tax, legal and other professional advice in respect
>of
> > >the
> > > > content
> > > > > > of this message. This message may contain
>confidential
> > >or
> > > > > > legally privileged material and may not be copied,
> > >redistributed
> > > > > > or published (in whole or in part) without our prior
> > >written
> > > > consent.
> > > > > > This email may have been intercepted, partially
> > >destroyed,
> > > > > > arrive late, incomplete or contain viruses and no
> > >liability is
> > > > > > accepted by any member of the Credit Agricole
>Indosuez
> > >group
> > > > > > as a result. If you are not the intended recipient
>of
> > >this
> > > > message,
> > > > > > please immediately notify the sender and delete this
> > >message
> > > > > > from your computer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >__________________________________________________
> > > > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > >Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
> > > > >http://news.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >__________________________________________________
> > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > >Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
> > >http://news.yahoo.com
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
>http://sbc.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:58 GMT-3