From: Joel W. Ekis (jekis@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Feb 23 2000 - 00:03:12 GMT-3
Art:
Your e-mail gave me a good laugh. I needed it, my attempt is 7 days away. Wha
t was so funny, your fully 'messed' DLSW. Believe me, the first time I saw DLS
W was in a fully messed network. Peers were going everywhere! No filters, no
HSRP, redundant T1 links carrying NO traffic.
Thanks for the light-hearted moment. No back to the grind.
Joel
At 01:11 PM 2/21/2000 -0500, Mosley, Arthur wrote:
>
>Just some more info I've collected. Let me know if this is accurate.
>
>Art
>
>
>Peer groups/Border peers - eliminates the requirement to be fully messed
>when communication is needed branch to branch, one branch sends out a
>single explorer packet (instead of one to each TCP connection) to the border
>router and the border router forward the packet for the branch to the other
>remote peers. Simliar concept to BGP route reflectors.
>
>proxy explorer is not needed with DLSW+, it's built in.
>______
>
>Vendor code filter - prevent explorer packet from sent out that by
>vendor portion/any portion of Mac address
>
>700-799 48-bit MAC address access list
>access-list 704 deny 0260.8c00.0000 0000.00FF.FFFF - deny's 3Com NICs
>access-list 704 permit 0000.0000.0000 FFFF.FFFF.FFFF - permit all others
>
>F's are don't care
>0's must match
>
>
>
>>From Configuring Cisco Routers for Bridging, DLSw+ & Desktop Protocols
>from
>Mcgraw-Hill publish - written by Tan Nam-Kee
>
>
>Filtering to reduce unwanted traffic/explorer packets with:
>
>dmac-output-list - mac address filter
>host-netbios-out - netbios filter
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mosley, Arthur
>To: 'zhencai '; Mosley, Arthur; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com '
>Sent: 2/20/00 6:33 PM
>Subject: RE: DLSw+ ring-list, port-list and bgroup-list/proxy explorer
>
>
>Thanks for your quick response. What phrases would lead to choose one
>over the other. For example:
>
>ICANREACH/ICANNOTREACH would be for a specific mac, netbios, sap
>address.
>
>border peers if you cannot fully mesh-similar to router reflectors in
>BGP
>
>port-list - if from a serial or token interface - for both token and
>ethernet. used if peering between token and ethernet.
>
>ring-list/bgroup - from a logical grouping
>
>
>Ring list over port list - easier to configure if you have many routers.
>
>Is ring-list perferred over port-list?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Art
>-----Original Message-----
>From: zhencai
>To: Mosley, Arthur; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Sent: 2/20/00 6:09 PM
>Subject: RE: DLSw+ ring-list, port-list and bgroup-list/proxy explorer
>
>Art,
>
>There are a lot of ways to control the explorer frames, like static
>path,
>ICANREACH, ICANNOTREACH, border peers, ring-list, bgroup-list etc.
>Ring-list
>is for tokenring interface, Bgroup-list is for ethernet. From CCO,
>port-list
>is for tokenring and serial ports, but I noticed it's a valid command in
>ethernet. Anyone can confirm this?
>Regards,
>
>Zhen Cai
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>Mosley, Arthur
>Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2000 2:24 PM
>To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com '
>Subject: DLSw+ ring-list, port-list and bgroup-list/proxy explorer
>
>
>If asked to control the flooding of explorer frames the ring-list,
>port-list
>and bgroup-list seem to accomplish this task.
>
>bgroup-list applies to Ethernet. Does ring-list and port-list apply to
>both
>Ethernet and Token ring?
>
>What are the pros and cons of each or how would I determine which one to
>use?
>
>Finally, how does the proxy-explorer command fit into the picture.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Art
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:22:54 GMT-3