From: Mark Lewis (markl11@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Oct 02 2000 - 15:06:33 GMT-3
Jeff,
Thanks for that.
Here's a ref. I just found which you might like:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/697/dlswfilter.html
And best of luck tomorrow.
Mark
>From: Jeff Sapiro <jeffsapiro@yahoo.com>
>To: Mark Lewis <markl11@hotmail.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: dlsw filtering/ETC...(CCBOOTCAMPL16)
>Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Mark,
>
>You don't need source bridge ring-group if you don't
>have a TR interface.
>
>More detail about my question:
>I know that if you are advertising an ethernet based
>resource to a TR device over DLSw you need to use
>non-canonical. I saw a comment in the archives that
>you also need to manually convert on the ethernet side
>for a dmac-output-list. This makes sense, just want
>to confirm. I would especially like to see a 'sh run'
>example of this that someone is certain is correct. I
>don't really expect to see this on the exam - just
>curious (at least I hope - I'm writing this from
>Halifax...my exam is tomorrow)
>
>Please reply to this direct address in addition to
>ccielab@groupstudy.com as I am not getting the
>groupstudy 'stream' from here. Thanks!
>
>Jeff
>
>--- Mark Lewis <markl11@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 - 08:25:23 GMT-3