Nigel,
Q-
"Why in the topology would one place a IISP route and not let PNNI do it all
dynamically?"
A-
You could have two groups of switches, where one group runs a level of code
that dosen't support PNNI, or is just not upgraded to PNNI....yet.
Mike
PS. Your right on target.
>From: "Nigel Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Mike Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Nortel/Bay ATM woes...
>Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:39:55 +0100
>
>Hey Mike,
> You were right on! Apparently the call was going out but
>never received. So the local les/bus pair showed the remote les/bus pair as
>"partially operational" Once we got the addresses right the problem was
>history. There was also mention of a IISP route as well as the PNNI
>routes.
>I did some reading and found that the IISP routes are more like UNI routes
>and do no dynamic routing, whereas you PNNI routes do. My question is why
>in the topology would one place a IISP route and not let PNNI do it all
>dynamically?
>
>Please let me know if I'm totally lost.... I'm doing allot of reading on
>the subject at the moment..trying to get a few things cleared up in my
>head(web closet)
>
>TIA
>
>Nigel
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 3:03 PM
>Subject: Re: Nortel/Bay ATM woes...
>
>
> > Nigel,
> >
> > We have Nortel's ATM solution in our LAN. The "partially operational"
>result is usually caused by one of two things or both.
> >
> > 1. Your call routes (on one side) are not set correctly.
> > 2. There is an error (on one side) in the remote les/bus address.
> >
> > Specifically, the error means that traffic is being transmitted or
>received by the remote device, but the local device can't "see" the far
>end.
> >
> > When I configure these switches, I open notepad and then cut and paste
>the
>LES/BUS addresses into SpeedView. That's the only way I've found to not
>screw up the address.
> >
> > ..confused yet?
> >
> > Mike Smith
> >
> > >From: "Nigel Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: "Nigel Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: "Bryant Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Cisco Group
>Study" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Subject: Nortel/Bay ATM woes...
> > >Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:54:12 +0100
> > >
> > >Hi All,
> > > I was wondering if anyone in the group had any ATM
>experience
>using Bay 5000 and Centillion 1600 ATM switches.
> > >I'm trying to solve a problem with the LES/BUS and remote coop pairs
>within the ELANs. When running a "show les"
> > >that various ELANs show LES/BUS as partially and fully Optimal. In
>order
>to get a greater understanding of the whole picture I'm now trying to
>figure
>out what exactly does Fully/Partially Optimal mean. Currently all devices
>join the various ELANs(12) but within those twelve ELANs various LES/BUS
>pairs show up as fully and partially optimal.
> > >
> > >Does anyone have an idea as to what I'm rambling about?
> > >
> > >TIA
> > >
> > >Nigel
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
