Adam, I have used DLSW many times to connect SNA/token rings sites together. It works great. One piece of advice I can give when setting up the DLSW, use loopbacks to form the DLSW "tunnel". This is especially useful if you have redundant paths to the sites. The loopbacks are always up, so if a link goes down the routing protocols find another way to the site and your connections are still active. As I'm sure you know, SNA is very sensative to time delays, using DLSW we saw increased reliability, and speed.
Hope this helps. Debbie Westall On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Andrew Larkins wrote: > Hi, > > I am using DLSW over frame relay already. Works great. From what I can > remember, DLSW+ establishes a TCP connection between the 2 routers, leaving > the SNA on the LAN's > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Frederick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 04 September 2002 18:37 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: DLSW ? [7:52674] > > > I just have a curiousty question. Hopefully you can help me out... > > Current Setup: > > Site A is connecting to Site B via Frame-Relay and is only transporting SNA. > Of course w/ SNA you have a SNA server and assign all users a LU. We are > getting ready to take out all SNA and make this IP that's flowing across the > Frame.. but it's still SNA on my provider side. I'm curious as to how they > are going to accomplish this. They require we use a specific naming > convention on all our Win2K machines. I'm thinking they're going to use > DLSW+ > ? Any input is greatly appreciated. If you need more info, please ask, I'm > kinda in a hurry! > > Adam Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=52725&t=52674 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
