Hi folks,
I am working on HaiBo DLSw+ Scenario
t0 r1 --------- r2 ------- r3 t0
|t0
Task 1
configure such that host at [r2] t0 can access host at [r3] t0. The
answer is quite obvious.
Task 2 (this is the tricky one)
configure [r1] such that host at [r2] and [r3] can access host at [r1].
Only ONE peer connection is allowed. Border peer command is not allowed.
I am thinking to use remote peer Passthru between r1--r2 and r2--r3 which
will provide me the same
virtual-ring group to use between r1--r2 and r2--r3. But I am not able to
see Beta on r1.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/ibm_
c/bcprt2/bcddlsw.htm#21315
Any comments, suggestions on these configs.
r1
!
source-bridge ring-group 100
dlsw local-peer peer-id 140.1.1.1
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 140.1.2.2 rif-passthru 100
r1#sh dl rea
DLSw Remote NetBIOS Name reachability cache list
NetBIOS Name status Loc. peer
Alpha UNCONFIRM REMOTE 140.1.2.2(2065)
r2
!
source-bridge ring-group 100
dlsw local-peer peer-id 140.1.2.2
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 140.1.1.1 rif-passthru 100
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 140.1.3.3 rif-passthru 100
dlsw icanreach netbios-exclusive
dlsw icanreach netbios-name Alpha
!
r2# sh dl rea
DLSw Remote NetBIOS Name reachability cache list
NetBIOS Name status Loc. peer
Beta UNCONFIRM REMOTE 140.1.3.3(2065)
r3
!
source-bridge ring-group 100
dlsw local-peer peer-id 140.1.3.3
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 140.1.2.2 rif-passthru 100
dlsw icanreach netbios-exclusive
dlsw icanreach netbios-name Beta
!
r3#sh dl rea
DLSw Remote NetBIOS Name reachability cache list
NetBIOS Name status Loc. peer
Alpha UNCONFIRM REMOTE 140.1.2.2(2065)
Regards,
ShahzaD
-----Original Message-----
From: ShahzaD Ali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 6:53 PM
To: Huang HaiBo
Subject: RE: DLSW questions, another idea
Did you get any feedback on this ???
Regards,
sa
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Huang HaiBo
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 11:37 PM
To: simplimarvelous
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DLSW questions, another idea
could you give details?
----- Original Message -----
From: simplimarvelous
To: Michel GASPARD ; Huang HaiBo
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: DLSW questions, another idea
> Is it possible to do it like this?
>
> Put R2 and R3 in a cluster leave R1 on its own. It would seem that R1
would
> only need to make a connection to the clusters ring, and would not need to
> have a connection to both routers in the cluster. I would think that the
> cluster internal routers would communicate fine, and any traffic from r3
to
> r1 would only have to make one connection via the clusters virtual ring.
>
> sounds good in theory...
>
>
> Gerald
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michel GASPARD"
> To: "Huang HaiBo"
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 8:07 AM
> Subject: Re: DLSW questions, another idea
>
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I though about another possibility, but I do not manage to make it work.
> >
> > I assume that to solve point 1), I used "promiscuous" in R2.
> >
> > My idea was: why not create a second DLSW tunnel, between R1 and R2
> > (just a simple remote-peer statement is enough on R1, nothing on R2 nor
> > R3).
> >
> > In that way, frames from R2 ro R1 are OK (simple DLSW).
> >
> > For frames from R3, I thought that they might be bridged R3-R2 with the
> > first DLSW tunnel, and then bridged again if necessary into the second
> > DLSW tunnel.
> >
> > But it seems it is not working that well (well, not at all..) in
> > reality.
> >
> > Does anybody have experience of "double DLSW" bridging, i.e. frames that
> > would arrive in a router DLSW, and would be bridged again though DLSW???
> >
> > Eventhough, this exercice was good to think "one step further"!!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > Huang HaiBo wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is an interesting scenario I got from a practice lab.
> > >
> > > e0 s0 s0 s1 s0 e0
> > > ---[r1]--------------[r2]-----------------[r3]-----
> > > |
> > > |e0
> > > Task 1
> > > configure such that host at [r2] e0 can access host at [r3] e0. The
> answer
> > > is quite obvious.
> > >
> > > Task 2 (this is the tricky one)
> > > configure [r1] such that host at [r2] and [r3] can access host at
[r1].
> > > Only ONE peer connection is allowed. Border peer command is not
allowed.
> > >
> > > The initial thot I have is to configure [r2] as border peer and then
> > > both r1 and r3 will peer with the border peer. But this will
> > > violate the rules becos no border peer command should be in r1.
> > >
> > > Another thot that came across my mind is to configure
> > > r1 in prosmicuous mode. Then r2 and r3 will peer with r1.
> > > Doing this will violate the rule again becos there will be 2 peer
> connection.
> > > Note that the question states ONE peer connection NOT one peer
command.
> > > That is to say when u do a sh dlsw peer, there should be only ONE
> connection.
> > >
> > > Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > Huang
> > > **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> > **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=3099&t=3099
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
