From: Roger Wang (rwang@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed May 31 2000 - 12:02:26 GMT-3
Actually, this question came up for me when I did Lab #1. The only
difference I can think of between using "map" statements and "frame-relay
interf-dlci" commands under sub-interfaces (either point-to-point or
multipoint) is that, when "map" statements are used, inverse-arp is disabled
for the protocol and DLCI number referenced. That's why sometimes things
break when routers were reloaded.
This brings up another question... in Caslow's book, it indicates that if
"frame-relay interf-dlci" isn't used with sub-interfaces, any DLCIs
announced from the FR switch are assigned to the physical interface. But
apparently, if a "map" statement is used instead of "frame-relay
interf-dlci", it works fine as well, unless I'm missing something.
I would send Marc an e-mail and see what he has to say.
Rog
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Dana_L_Steffey@notes.seagate.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 9:47 AM
> To: Earl Aboytes
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: lab8
>
>
>
> I also had a question come up on Router 5 in this lab concerning DLCI's.
> It is more of a question of what is the right way to do it. And I figure
> their is enough brain power in this group to answer it.
>
> For those who do not have the cciebootcamp labs -
>
> I have a point-to-mulitpoint subinterface -
>
> Normally on physical interfaces I use the 'frame-relay map ip'
> command, and
> on sub-interfaces I use the a 'frame-relay interf-dlci xxx command.
>
> On this particular point-to-multipoint, it confused me a little but I went
> ahead and typed in both DLCI's with the 'frame-relay interf-dlci' command
> that I usually would on a subinterface and it seemed to work fine.
> (haven't done that many point-to-multipoint's)
>
> Afterwords I was looking through marc's answers I noticed he used two map
> commands instead of the interface command - So is it more like an
> IOS thing
> where the old map statements still work but it is good 'policy' to use the
> interface dlci command on subinterfaces?
>
> I guess more to the point - In the 'real' lab - static routes aside - do
> you get knocked on points for idiosyncrasies like this? or as long as the
> route table is good to go you are fine?
>
> BTW - in case I didn't say it - THIS LAB REALLY SUCKS - or maybe more to
> the point - it is showing me a got a lot more studying to in the next 20
> days.
>
> Dana
> Lab: 21 June Nova Scotia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Earl Aboytes" <earl@linkline.com>@groupstudy.com on 05/31/2000
> 03:18:26 AM
>
> Please respond to "Earl Aboytes" <earl@linkline.com>
>
> Sent by: nobody@groupstudy.com
>
>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> cc:
>
> Subject: lab8
>
>
>
>
> In one part of the lab you are asked to redistribute between BGP and OSPF.
> There is an IGRP domain present that also has a mutual redistribution
> between it and OSPF. My problem is that the only way that I could get my
> external type 1 and external type 2 routes to inject into BGP was to use
> the "redistribute ospf 1 match external 1 external 2" command. I did not
> see this command in the solution guide that Marc provided to me. Is this
> the way that he wants you to do this or am I missing something?
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Earl Aboytes
>
> Senior Technical Conultant
>
> GTE Managed Solutions
>
> 805-381-8817
>
> earl.aboytes@telops.gte.com
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:23:32 GMT-3