Hi Scott,

 

Thanks for your answer. So this means I could also configure the physical
interface in “cisco” frame-relay mode and than on the subinterface one
frame-map with IETF mode while all the others are in cisco mode.

This could lead to a nice, evil wording in a task...hehe

 

regards

 

Roger

 

Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Scott Morris
Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Juni 2008 08:12
An: 'OSL CCIE Routing and Switching Lab Exam'
Betreff: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Scenario 26 frame-relay ietf

 

If you use "encapsulation frame-relay ietf" this will set the default for
every PVC to be IETF.  You can check this using "show frame-relay map" once
you have your mapping set!

 

So while it won't hurt anything to put this on the sub-if or maping
commands, it doesn't do anything different!

 

The lab requirements may place a restriction of only using the "ietf"
parameter once even though multiple DLCIs are affected.  This is a good
reason to watch what happens when using the physical interface's
encapsulation command.

 

HTH,

 

Scott

 

 

  _____  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger RPF
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 4:09 AM
To: 'OSL CCIE Routing and Switching Lab Exam'
Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Scenario 26 frame-relay ietf

Hi group,

I have two question regarding LAB26 frame-relay. 

1.      There is the task to configure the ser0/2/0 link between R2 and R5
with frame-relay RFC2427. Well, I configured the physical interface with
frame-relay ietf. So I made a p-t-p subinterface and configured the
frame-rel int dlci. Now, is it not necessary to also configure this
interface dlci with ietf?

!

interface Serial0/2/0

 no ip address

 encapsulation frame-relay IETF

 no keepalive

 no frame-relay inverse-arp

!

interface Serial0/2/0.2 point-to-point

 ip address 172.16.25.0 255.255.255.254

 snmp trap link-status

 frame-relay de-group 1 25

 frame-relay interface-dlci 25 IETF   

!  

2.      A previous task requires us on R2 to mark everything above 512bytes
with DE. The solution forgot to also apply this de-group to the Ser0/2/0
interface...

regards

Roger

Reply via email to