From: Forest Riek (forestr@xxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Sep 08 2000 - 00:41:03 GMT-3
Here is a sample config for a host router (it includes both a serial SDLC
interface and Ethernet interface to a AS/400) and a remote router (serial SDLC
interface) using DLSW+. I have left out the WAN configurations (frame relay)
and the routing protocol (EIGRP).
Host Router: (Cisco3640)
version 11.3
service telnet-zeroidle
service timestamps log datetime localtime show-timezone
no service password-encryption
service udp-small-servers
service tcp-small-servers
!
hostname host
!
no ip domain-lookup
isdn switch-type basic-ni1
clock timezone pst -8
clock summer-time pdt recurring
buffers small permanent 75
buffers middle permanent 45
!
source-bridge ring-group 150
dlsw local-peer peer-id 172.16.1.1 promiscuous
dlsw bridge-group 4
!
interface Loopback0
ip address 172.16.1.1 255.255.255.255
!
interface Ethernet0/0
description Ethernet Segment to AS/400
ip address 172.18.1.1 255.255.255.128
bridge-group 4
!
interface Serial1/0
description First Serial Link to AS/400
no ip address
encapsulation sdlc
no keepalive
idle-character marks
nrzi-encoding
clockrate 64000
sdlc role secondary
sdlc vmac 4222.2503.0000
sdlc address 05 xid-poll
sdlc partner 4805.0001.0005 05
sdlc address A0 xid-poll
sdlc partner 4851.0001.01A0 A0
sdlc dlsw 5 A0
Note: I have configured up to 20 PU's on a single serial interface with no
problems
!
bridge 4 protocol ieee
Remote Router: (Serial only - Cisco2501CFRAD)
version 11.2
no service pad
service timestamps log datetime localtime show-timezone
service udp-small-servers
service tcp-small-servers
!
hostname Remote
!
no ip domain-lookup
clock timezone pst -8
clock summer-time pdt recurring
source-bridge ring-group 150
dlsw local-peer peer-id 172.16.1.11
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 172.16.1.1
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 172.16.1.2
!
interface Loopback0
ip address 172.16.1.11 255.255.255.255
!
interface Serial1
no ip address
encapsulation sdlc
no keepalive
half-duplex
nrzi-encoding
clockrate 19200
sdlc role primary
sdlc vmac 4805.0001.0000
sdlc poll-pause-timer 50
sdlc T1 1000
sdlc N2 5
sdlc address 05
sdlc xid 05 05F00005
sdlc partner 4222.2503.0005 05
sdlc address 06 xid-poll
sdlc partner 4244.4444.44c4 06
sdlc slow-poll 30
sdlc dlsw 5 6
Note: PU 5 attaches to the host serial interface and PU 6 attaches to the host
ethernet interface
Remote Router: (Cisco2520)
version 11.2
service timestamps log datetime localtime show-timezone
no service password-encryption
service udp-small-servers
service tcp-small-servers
!
hostname Remote
no ip domain-lookup
isdn switch-type basic-ni1
clock timezone cst -6
clock summer-time cdt recurring
source-bridge ring-group 150
dlsw local-peer peer-id 172.16.1.44
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 172.16.1.1
dlsw bridge-group 5
!
interface Loopback0
ip address 172.16.1.44 255.255.255.255
!
interface Ethernet0
ip address 172.18.44.1 255.255.255.128
bridge-group 5
Note: There is a ethernet attached SDLC gateway on the ethernet segment
!
interface Serial1
description local controllers
no ip address
encapsulation sdlc
no keepalive
half-duplex
nrzi-encoding
clockrate 9600
sdlc role primary
sdlc vmac 4851.0001.0100
sdlc poll-pause-timer 50
sdlc T1 1000
sdlc N2 5
sdlc address A0
sdlc xid A0 05F000A0
sdlc partner 4222.2503.00a0 A0
sdlc address A5
sdlc xid A5 05632107
sdlc partner 4244.4444.44c4 A5
sdlc dlsw A0 A5
Note: Again one controller to a host serial interface and one to a host etherne
t
interface
bridge 5 protocol ieee
Let me know if you have any question on the configs.
Forest Riek
Brian Jacklin wrote:
> Forest,
> Could you send me a sample of your DLSW config?
> Thanks!
> Brian Jacklin
> Sprint ENS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Forest Riek [mailto:forestr@gte.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 3:01 AM
> To: Ron.Fuller@3x.com
> Cc: Brian Jacklin; ccielab@groupstudy.com; nobody@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: DLSW versus STUN w/ Local Ack
>
> I agree with Ron about using a LAN interface on the AS/400, but if you are
> simply replacing
> an existing point-to-point serial link with routers then you can still use
> the serial
> interfaces on the routers and use DLSW+ at the same time.
>
> The main advantage to using the existing serial interface on the AS/400 is
> that you don't
> need to 'gen' a new configuration on the AS/400. I have done this for
> several different
> customers and can provide sample configurations.
>
> Forest Riek
>
> Ron.Fuller@3x.com wrote:
>
> > I have configured this exact scenario for a number of my clients, and
> > here's my two bits. I have always leaned towards the DLSW solution.
> > First, as long as the AS/400 has a LAN card (ethernet or token ring) you
> > don't have to waste expensive serial ports on both the 400 and the router.
> > You also have more bandwidth to use as well. This can be an issue since
> we
> > have clients with 15 to 20 5x94 controllers remotely connected to the 400.
> > You use SDLC between the remote router and the controller, then
> encapsulate
> > it in IP using dlsw to transport it across the network. The only real
> > gotcha is to make sure that the controllers have the right PRPQ from IBM
> to
> > support PU 2.1 (I think...don't quote this as gospel). If your 400 is
> > running a newer version of OS/400, you'll be grooving. If you would like
> a
> > sample config, let me know.
> >
> > STUN is cool and everything, but the real concern is the wasting of serial
> > ports. The DLSW solution will let you do the same thing with less
> > headaches. IMHO.
> >
> > Ron Fuller, CCIE #5851, CCDP, CCNP-ATM, CCNP-Security, MCNE
> > 3X Corporation
> > rfuller@3x.com
> >
> >
> > "Brian Jacklin"
> > <bmjackli@sprintpa To:
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > ranet.com> cc:
> > Sent by: Subject: DLSW versus
> STUN w/ Local Ack
> > nobody@groupstudy.
> > com
> >
> >
> > 09/05/00 01:45 PM
> > Please respond to
> > "Brian Jacklin"
> >
> >
> >
> > Can anyone give me a pro versus con analysis of DLSW versus STUN in the
> > following situation?
> >
> > AS/400 ----SDLC--- RTR-------Frame Relay WAN ----- RTR----SDLC---5394
> >
> > The AS 400 and 5394 controller are both connected to serial ports.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Brian Jacklin
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:24:54 GMT-3