From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 12:18:26 GMT-3
Emad,
When you match 'protocol dlsw', you're matching direct
encapsulation. For TCP encap, use an access-list that matches ports
2065 and 1981 - 1983.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/
qos_r/qrdcmd4.htm#1019229
HTH,
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Direct: 708-362-1418 (Outside the US and Canada)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: emad [mailto:emad@zakq8.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 3:14 AM
> To: 'Brian McGahan'
> Subject: FW: RE: Difference between these two ( QoS)
>
>
>
> Hi Brian(our group list Guru),
> Sorry for sending offline but just to cut it short in one statement,
> I saw a lot of opinions about how to put access-list for DLSW traffic?
> If he mentioned in the QoS question as an example 10% of the bandwidth
> will be dedicated for DLSW and he didn't mention whether it is TCP
> encapsulation or DLSW Lite
>
> Thanx a lot in advance
>
> Regards
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Scott Morris
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 8:55 PM
> To: 'SHARMA,MOHIT (HP-Germany,ex1)'; 'Jonathan V Hays';
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: RE: Difference between these two ( QoS)
>
> That would be correct for the original version (RFC1795), however when
> later RFC's came out (I think 2114) that changed. Now (prove this
with
> a sniffer if you are curious) the source port will be a high random
port
> above 11,000.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> SHARMA,MOHIT (HP-Germany,ex1)
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 1:33 PM
> To: 'Jonathan V Hays'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc: 'Scott Morris'
> Subject: RE: RE: Difference between these two ( QoS)
>
>
> Hi,
> DLSW TCP encapsulation is transimiting on port 2065 and does listen
on
> port 2067.
>
> Smiles,
> Mohit.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan V Hays [mailto:jhays@jtan.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:27 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc: 'Scott Morris'
> Subject: RE: RE: Difference between these two ( QoS)
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
> > Behalf Of Scott Morris
> > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 8:54 AM
> > To: polarccie@yahoo.co.uk; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: RE: Difference between these two ( QoS)
> >
> >
> > 2067 isn't really used any longer. 1981 - 1983 are used only if you
> > have priority configured on your DLSw peers.
> >
> > Scott
> >
>
> Hmmm. I know I saw a bunch of port 2067 packets the other day in a
> "debug ip packet detail". I was doing a practice lab. What commands
> might trigger the use of port 2067?
>
> TIA,
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 07:24:28 GMT-3