From: Mark Lewis (markl11@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Oct 01 2000 - 20:08:59 GMT-3
Well, again in the archives (so you probably know already) I saw a comment
which was that the addresses are always sent by dlsw in non-canonical format
- doubt that helps though.
Actually, I've got a related question:
if I config. the following:
r1:
(NO source-bridge ring-group here)
dlsw local-peer peer-id 10.1.1.1 (yep, I know it's better using a loopback
as the id)
dlsw remote 0 tcp 10.1.1.2
dlsw bridge-group 1
int e0
ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
bridge-group 1
bridge 1 protocol ieee
r2:
source-bridge ring-group 75
dlsw local-peer peer-id 10.1.1.2
dlsw remote 0 tcp 10.1.1.1 lf 1500
int to0
ip addr 10.1.1.2 255.255.255.0
source-bridge 2 2 75
source-bridge spanning
Q: How do the frames pass from r1 to r2 ? Can sb. confirm (or set me
straight) that they are translated from ethernet to token ring & visa-versa
?
Q2: If I add the command 'source-bridge ring-group 75' to r1 does it mean
that the frames now cross the link & arrive at the destination UNtranslated?
I've seen so many config.s with one or the other (ie the 'source-bridge
ring-group' command both on the ethernet router & not).
In CCBootcamp lab 16, they have a q. about dlsw translational bridging and
there is NO 'source-bridge ring-group' on the ETHERNET router.
However, on one or two of the earlier CCBootcamp labs there was this
command.
I obviously need to pin this one down 'cos again it impacts crucially on
filtering...
Any ideas anybody?
Mark
P.S. Sorry Jeff, I've probably more confused than you!
>From: Jeff Sapiro <jeffsapiro@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: Jeff Sapiro <jeffsapiro@yahoo.com>
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: dlsw filtering/icanreach
>Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 15:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Checking back in the archives I can't get a clear
>answer about when to convert canonical addresses. any takers?
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:22 GMT-3