RE: DLSW Confusion [7:18304]
no, this is not needed when only dealing with ethernets. Although arguing that it doesn't do any harm -Original Message- From: Cisco Lover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 September 2001 13:42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: DLSW Confusion [7:18304] Hi guys, I am still revolving around an stupid DLSW confusion. I found in many 3rd party labs and other configurations that they are using SOURCE-ROUTE BRIDGE x command even when configuring DLSW+ between 2 ethernet segments.. Do we really need to put this command even when we are not dealing with TR?? I am not agree with this Any idea? Thanks. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=18306&t=18304 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DLSW Confusion [7:18304]
I have this set up in my lab right now, and I left the source-route commands off on all the Ethernet routers and it worked fine. Lance ""Cisco Lover"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi guys, > > I am still revolving around an stupid DLSW confusion. > I found in many 3rd party labs and other configurations that they are > using SOURCE-ROUTE BRIDGE x command even when configuring DLSW+ between 2 > ethernet segments.. > > Do we really need to put this command even when we are not dealing with > TR?? > > I am not agree with this > > Any idea? > > Thanks. > > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=18326&t=18304 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DLSW Confusion [7:18304]
DLSW+ is supposed to be a method to encapsulate sna packet over IP network. and to do so, you need to create a virtual ring and join all the token ring into that ring( the Source-bridge ring-group command), DLSW will pick up the packet from the virtual ring and send them through the IP network. And since most sna originate from Mainframe network which reside on Token Ring based network, and thus the source-route bridge command will make sense to bridge the token ring network to the virtual ring. if there is no source-route bridge , won't it be a little bit misleading in term of why you need DLSW in the first place ? my 0.01 Donny CCDA CCNP >From: "Cisco Lover" >Reply-To: "Cisco Lover" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: DLSW Confusion [7:18304] >Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 08:41:49 -0400 > >Hi guys, > >I am still revolving around an stupid DLSW confusion. >I found in many 3rd party labs and other configurations that they are >using SOURCE-ROUTE BRIDGE x command even when configuring DLSW+ between 2 >ethernet segments.. > >Do we really need to put this command even when we are not dealing with >TR?? > >I am not agree with this > >Any idea? > >Thanks. > >_ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=18364&t=18304 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
