From: Derek Fage (DerekF@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Aug 04 1999 - 11:24:46 GMT-3
When configuring DLSW+ for transparent bridging between two ethernet sites,
will it only bridge certain types of frame ?
I've had it working in the my lab with Netbeui and IP (no mainframes
available for SNA <ggg>), but I was trying to setup to test with LAT. My
config is DLSW between ethernets on R1 and R2.
I've tried enabling LAT on the ethernet interfaces on R1 and R2, and also
advertising services. I've also connected router R3 to the same ethernet
segment as R2 and advertised LAT out of that. The service is seen on R2, but
not bridged across to R1.
My other question is regarding how it handles spanning tree when there are
two routers running transparent bridging across DLSW. When I do a show span
on both routers, each one thinks it is the root of the spanning tree.The
DLSW ports show BDPUs sent, but none received.
Derek...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Carter [SMTP:bcarter@family-net.net]
> Sent: 23 July 1999 19:25
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc: rtrunk@xatlantic.com; mdetrick@cisco.com; Pamela Forsyth;
> seth-cs_chen@hp.com; vaughan.lee@debis.co.uk
> Subject: Re: Redist dist-list problems
>
> After posting this question at 1:30 AM and not getting any responses (I
> guess
> you folks have lives, I'm jealous). I called TAC about this issue. TAC
> gave 2
> solutions:
> 1) Distribute-List
> router ospf 1
> redistribute RIP subnets 10 in
> access-list 10 deny 12.0.0.0 0.0.0.255
> access-list 10 deny 150.100.1.0 0.0.0.255
> access-list 10 permit any
>
> Because of the LSA issue, this solution has to be issued on every ospf
> router.
> While the end result would prevent the routes from being placed into the
> route
> tables, it is very clumsy. And if the route is not in the table but it is
> in
> the database has much been gained.
>
> 2) Route-map
>
> This solution prevents not only the route from coming into OSPF, but also
> into
> the Database. It looks like the preferred answer is to use route-maps to
> filter
> from a DV to a LS. I am not clear enough on distribution-lists to
> understand
> why these 2 solution provide different results. What is different??
>
> router ospf 1
> redistribute rip subnets route-map test
> passive-interface Ethernet0
> passive-interface Serial1
> network 150.100.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
> !
> router rip
> redistribute ospf 1
> passive-interface Serial0.1
> network 150.100.0.0
> default-metric 5
> access-list 10 deny 12.0.0.0 0.0.0.255
> access-list 10 deny 150.100.1.0 0.0.0.255
> access-list 10 permit any
> route-map test permit 10
> match ip address 10
>
> Ron Trunk wrote:
>
> > >Pamela is right in that LS routing protos can't be filtered the way
> that DV
> > >can be.
> > >
> >
> > I agree 100%
> >
> > >The routes in OSPF are calculated by SPF from LSA and no routes are
> > >transferred amoung routers in the area at any time. However, I think
> with
> > >distribute-list you can filter routes that are calculated by OSPF and
> then
> > >put INto the table. This is only effective on the local router,
> therefore,
> > >to eliminate a route from all routers in an OSPF area you would have to
> put
> > >this statement on all the routers. The LSAs would not be effected.
> > >
> >
> > But if that router is the distribution router, as in Bill's case, it
> would
> > make sense, since he is filtering routers learned from outside the
> domain
> > (e.g. RIP). If the routes are filtered before they get into the
> routing
> > table, OSPF won't redistribute them to the other OSPF routers.
> >
> > Ron
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:46 GMT-3