Bauke, I have to tell you, I like the way you are thinking here! It shows me that you are "getting it" and that is awesome! You are right on both accounts! You COULD use a frame map here ...either way it's all good : ) Also, yes, you could just do no keepalive as well. In fact that is my preferred way to do it, just how I learned it. Nice!
Regards, Joe Astorino CCIE #24347 (R&S) Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc. URL: http://www.IPexpert.com <http://www.ipexpert.com/> _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bauke Dzavhale Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] LAB 10-Vol 2- Task 3-2 [see also LAB 8 - vol 2 Task2-2] Team, Two questions regarding this task: 1- Instead of using #frame-relay interface-dlci 69, under the #int mfr1 69, could we use frame-relay map ip x.x.x.x 69 brodcast? 2- Because we have no real Frame-Relay switch, the solution uses the command frame-relay intf-type dce in R9 to simulate the Frame-relay switch. My question is could not we just tell the routers not to expect LMI from the Frame-Relay switch [since there is none] via #no keepalive command? PS: Few weeks ago Antonio Dee Hotmail posted a solution for a problem similar to this one using only 1 DLCI and "#no keepalive". [see email about LAB 8 Vol 2- Task 2-2, posted on "Sun, 5/31/09" in this mailing list]. I did the same thing and it worked. Would that be an acceptable solution? Thanks Bauke _____ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/> All-new Yahoo! Mail No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.54/2158 - Release Date: 06/08/09 06:01:00
