Comments below...
________________________________________________ Get your own "800" number Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag ---- On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Chuck Larrieu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > that said, if there were no token ring switch in the picture, I would > have > something like this: > > TR_port----DLSW_Router-------Virtual_Ring-------DLSW_router--- ---TR_port > > my DLSw config would include the source-bridge ring-group [virtual_ring > # ] > and the dlsw ring-list x rings [whatever rings are to receive dlsw > traffic] > > my token ring interfaces would be configured with the source- bridge > [ring_a] > [bridge] [ring_b] numbers where ring_a is the ring to which the TR > interface > is attached and the bridge is somewhat arbitrary ( stop grinding your > teeth, > Priscilla! ;-> ) and ring_b is the virtual-ring number. > > But if I were to do it this way: > > DLSw_router----TR_port-------TR_Switch-------TR_port--- DLSw_router > > then the virtual-ring is on the TR switch, isn't it? I.e. now the > virtual > ring is something configured on the switch, and to me that looks like > the > TrBRF number. > If that is your topology, then there's no need for DLSw+ because all of your clients are in the same SRB domain. But what if it looked like this: R1---(dlsw)---R2----(t/r)----3920----(t/r)---R3---(dlsw)---R4 Let's say you have clients in the SRB domain that need connectivity to TR ports on R1 and R4. In this case the bridges configured in the SRB domain are irrelevant to the configuration of R2 and R3. Let's say your virtual ring on both sides was 100 and the ring number on R2 was 20. Your config on R2 would look like this: source-bridge ring-group 100 dlsw local-peer peer-id dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp ! int tokenring0 source-bridge 20 1 100 Then, on R3 the ring number on the TR interface was 30, the config would be: source-bridge ring-group 100 (or whatever, it doesn't matter in this case) dlsw local-peer peer-id dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp ! int tokenring0 source-bridge 30 1 100 In both cases--on r2 and r3--the router is considering itself to be bridge number one, and in neither case is the TrBRF configuration on the 3920 relevant. Does that help or am I answering the wrong question again? John BTW, it's a fairly slow day here, too. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30586&t=30586 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
