From: Jack Heney (jheneyccie@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Oct 10 2000 - 16:47:05 GMT-3
I tried using a port-list with a fastethernet interface in the same
configuration I used below...I used "dlsw port-list 1 fastethernet 0/0" and
when I applied it to the remote peer (dlsw remote-peer 1 tcp 10.6.2.254
priority) I lost all connectivity from Host C to both Hosts A and B...Like I
said earlier, I noticed that the command description changed from 11.2 to
12.0 and I'm using 12.07t in my lab, so maybe it would work with an older
IOS. I coudn't get connectivity re-established until I added "dlsw
bgroup-list 1 bgroup 1" though. I did find it strange that the router let
me use fastehthernet in the port-list if the command usage has indeed
changed, though. Chalk it up to backwards compatability, I guess.
Jack
>From: "Jack Heney" <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: "Jack Heney" <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>
>To: Simon.Baxter@au.logical.com, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: DLSW prioritzation - Results
>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:28:57 GMT
>
>Okay...I don't know if this is the purpose, but I set up a lab and the
>theory I proposed actually works...The setup looks like this:
>
>Host A----f0/0-R1-s0/0------s0/0-R2-f0/0------f0/0-R3-to0/0-----Host C
> |
> f0/1
> |
> |
> Host B
>
>I established a DLSW+ connection with priority between R1 and R3. I then
>set up a SAP priority list that gave netbios and IPX traffic high priority
>and put it on f0/0 only....When I initiated a NetBios connection from Host
>A
>to Host C, the DLSW packets used port 2065, but when I initiated a
>conection
>from Host B to Host C, all data packets used port 1982 (the default for
>data
>packets)...Thus, I can conclude that using the "DLSW bridge-group x
>sap-priority y" command will prioritize all traffic on interfaces in the
>bridge-group, whereas leaving off the sap-priority on the above command and
>using the "sap-priority" command on one interface in the bridge-group will
>only prioritize traffic on that interface. Here is my config for R1:
>
>sap-priority-list 1 high ssap F0 dsap F0
>sap-priority-list 1 high ssap E0 dsap E0
>dlsw local-peer peer-id 10.46.1.4
>dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 10.6.2.254 priority
>dlsw bridge-group 1
>!
>
>interface FastEthernet0/0
>no ip address
>bridge-group 1
>sap-priority 1
>!
>interface FastEthernet0/1
>no ip address
>bridge-group 1
>!
>interface Serial0/0
>ip address 10.46.1.4 255.255.255.0
>encapsulation frame-relay
>custom-queue-list 1
>!
>queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp 2065
>queue-list 1 protocol ip 2 tcp 1981
>queue-list 1 protocol ip 3 tcp 1982
>queue-list 1 protocol ip 4 tcp 1983
>queue-list 1 default 5
>queue-list 1 queue 1 byte-count 500
>queue-list 1 queue 2 byte-count 500
>queue-list 1 queue 3 byte-count 500
>queue-list 1 queue 4 byte-count 500
>bridge 1 protocol ieee
>
>Next I'll see if I can use a port-list with an ethernet port. Hope this
>helped...Jack
>
>
>>From: "Jack Heney" <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>
>>Reply-To: "Jack Heney" <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>
>>To: Simon.Baxter@au.logical.com, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>Subject: RE: DLSW prioritsation
>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:13:40 GMT
>>
>>I've got a theory, but it is really nothing more than a theory, so if
>>anyone
>>knows I would love to hear the answer...What if you wanted to prioritize
>>based on saps, but only for one interface in a bridge group that spanned
>>multiple interfaces? I.E. if you don't specify a priority level but you
>>turn on prioritization for DLSW, all data packets are classified for
>>normal
>>priority, so what if all traffic on one bridge-group interface was to be
>>prioritized but all traffic on another could simply be classified as
>>normal
>>priority...Specifying "sap-priority" on the end of "dlsw bridge-group"
>>wouldn't allow you to do this (all traffic from the bridge group would be
>>prioritized). I'll try it out in the lab tomorrow, but that's the only
>>thing I can come up with. Seems to make sense, though.
>>
>>As far as your other question goes, I think it has to do with backwards
>>compatability...First, look at this link (careful with the word wrap) for
>>IOS 12.0...It says that port-list can be used for token ring and serial:
>>
>>http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/12cgcr/ibm_r/
brprt2/brdlsw.htm
>>
>>Then look at this link (version 11.2)...It says that port-list works for
>>TR,
>>serial, and ethernet (but strangely enough, the bgroup-list command is
>>also
>>shown, which I would assume replaced the use of port-list for ethernet
>>interfaces...go figure):
>>
>>http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios112/112cg_cr/8rbo
ok/8rdlsw.htm
>>
>>Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and I'll check that one out tomorrow as
>>well (whether or not it works with ethernet, that is)
>>
>>Jack
>>
>>
>>>From: Simon Baxter <Simon.Baxter@au.logical.com>
>>>To: Jack Heney <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>>Subject: RE: DLSW prioritsation
>>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:53:16 +1100
>>>
>>>Thanks for that..
>>>
>>>but...
>>>
>>>the sap-priority command also exists for the ethernet interface.....why?
>>>Is it not for dlsw but for a multi-port bridge scenario?
>>>
>>>ie
>>>int e0
>>>bridge 5
>>>sap-priority 1
>>>!
>>>int e1
>>>bridge 5
>>>sap-priority 1
>>>
>>>??
>>>
>>>Also, any idea why you can build a dlsw port list that includes ethernet
>>>interfaces?? I thought TLSRB had to always be used with ethernets??
>>>
>>>thanks!
>>>
>>>Simon
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Jack Heney [mailto:jheneyccie@hotmail.com]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 8:08 AM
>>>To: Simon Baxter; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>>Subject: Re: DLSW prioritsation
>>>
>>>
>>>The configs you have posted are correct in that you have used the
>>>priority
>>>command to open 4 tcp pipes to the remote peer, mapped incoming traffic
>>>to
>>>the appropriate pipes (with the dlsw bridge-group sap-priority command),
>>>and
>>>
>>>specified how traffic from those pipes will be handled in the output
>>>queue
>>>(through custom queuing)...The sap-priority command associates incoming
>>>traffic with a sap-priority-list, which is a function that you have
>>>performed using the DLSW bridge-group sap-priority command (because
>>>incoming
>>>
>>>traffic on any interface in the bridge group will be prioritized
>>>according
>>>to your sap-priority-list)...Since token ring traffic is bridged into
>>>dlsw
>>>with a source-bridge command (there is no equivalent of ethernet's
>>>bridge-group), it requires a separate command to associate incoming
>>>traffic
>>>with a sap-priority-list, so the sap-priority command is used on incoming
>>>interfaces. Hope this clears things up.
>>>Jack
>>>
>>>
>>> >From: Simon Baxter <Simon.Baxter@au.logical.com>
>>> >Reply-To: Simon Baxter <Simon.Baxter@au.logical.com>
>>> >To: "CCIE Group Study (E-mail)" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>> >Subject: DLSW prioritsation
>>> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:08:17 +1100
>>> >
>>> >I've managed to get dlsw priority working as it should, but have a few
>>> >queries.
>>> >
>>> >After the basic setup of :
>>> >local peering
>>> >remote peering
>>> >dlsw remote priority
>>> >
>>> >I set up some sap-priority-lists to put netbios traffic ahead of sna
>>>etc
>>> >etc.
>>> >
>>> >(RA-RB-RC)
>>> >
>>> >I found that I all I needed was :
>>> >
>>> >!
>>> >hostname RA
>>> >!
>>> >!
>>> >sap-priority-list 1 medium ssap F0 dsap F0
>>> >sap-priority-list 1 high ssap 4 dsap 4
>>> >dlsw local-peer peer-id 1.1.1.1
>>> >dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 3.3.3.3 priority
>>> >dlsw bridge-group 5 sap-priority 1
>>> >!
>>> >interface Loopback0
>>> > ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
>>> >!
>>> >interface Ethernet0
>>> > no ip address
>>> > bridge-group 5
>>> >!
>>> >interface Serial0
>>> > ip address 192.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
>>> > custom-queue-list 1
>>> >!
>>> >!
>>> >router eigrp 1
>>> > network 192.1.1.0
>>> >!
>>> >no ip classless
>>> >queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp 2065
>>> >queue-list 1 protocol ip 2 tcp 1981
>>> >queue-list 1 protocol ip 3 tcp 1982
>>> >queue-list 1 protocol ip 4 tcp 1983
>>> >queue-list 1 protocol ip 5
>>> >queue-list 1 queue 1 byte-count 500
>>> >queue-list 1 queue 2 byte-count 500
>>> >queue-list 1 queue 3 byte-count 500
>>> >queue-list 1 queue 4 byte-count 500
>>> >bridge 5 protocol ieee
>>> >alias exec c conf t
>>> >!
>>> >
>>> >RA#
>>> >RC#term len 0
>>> >RC#sh ru
>>> >Building configuration...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >hostname RC
>>> >!
>>> >sap-priority-list 1 medium ssap F0 dsap F0
>>> >sap-priority-list 1 high ssap 4 dsap 4
>>> >dlsw local-peer peer-id 3.3.3.3
>>> >dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 1.1.1.1 priority
>>> >dlsw bridge-group 5 sap-priority 1
>>> >!
>>> >interface Loopback0
>>> > ip address 3.3.3.3 255.255.255.0
>>> > no logging event subif-link-status
>>> >!
>>> >interface Ethernet0
>>> > bridge-group 5
>>> >!
>>> >interface Async1
>>> > ip address 193.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
>>> > encapsulation ppp
>>> > no logging event subif-link-status
>>> > async default routing
>>> > async dynamic routing
>>> > async mode dedicated
>>> > custom-queue-list 1
>>> >!
>>> >router eigrp 1
>>> > network 193.1.1.0
>>> > default-metric 38400 2 255 1 1500
>>> >!
>>> >queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp 2065
>>> >queue-list 1 protocol ip 2 tcp 1981
>>> >queue-list 1 protocol ip 3 tcp 1982
>>> >queue-list 1 protocol ip 4 tcp 1983
>>> >queue-list 1 protocol ip 5
>>> >queue-list 1 queue 1 byte-count 500
>>> >queue-list 1 queue 2 byte-count 500
>>> >queue-list 1 queue 3 byte-count 500
>>> >queue-list 1 queue 4 byte-count 500
>>> >!
>>> >bridge 5 protocol ieee
>>> > bridge 5 route ip
>>> >line con 0
>>> > exec-timeout 0 0
>>> > privilege level 15
>>> >line aux 0
>>> > modem InOut
>>> > rotary 1
>>> > transport input all
>>> > stopbits 1
>>> > speed 38400
>>> > flowcontrol hardware
>>> >line vty 0 4
>>> > privilege level 15
>>> > no login
>>> >!
>>> >end
>>> >
>>> >RC#
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Question :
>>> >
>>> > I don't seem to need the "sap-priority 1" on either ethernet - but I
>>>have
>>> >seen it on token examples??? Why??
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:25 GMT-3