From: Jack Heney (jheneyccie@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Oct 11 2000 - 04:24:36 GMT-3
Wow...Good stuff...That answers a few questions for me (and, as always,
creates a few more, but since my SNA knowledge is very limited, I'll save
them for a later time)...Where did you find this (and is the more related
info)? Thanks for your help...Jack
>From: Simon Baxter <Simon.Baxter@au.logical.com>
>To: Jack Heney <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: DLSW prioritzation - Results
>Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:47:19 +1100
>
>Here's the answer from Cisco on SNA sap numbers....
>
>
>It is not really as complicated as the customer thinks. Essentially,
>SNA traffic can use and SAP that is a multiple of four, with 4 being the
>most commonly used, and 8 and C also being common. Numbers above C are
>also allowed, but are not seen very often. The one complication is the
>the low order bit of the sap value does not actually have anything to do
>with the SAP per se, but rather is hijacked for use as either the
>command/response bit, or the individual/group (this is not often used)
>bit depending on if the field you are looking at in the frame is an SSAP
>or a DSAP. Essentially what this means is that when using a sap of 4,
>an analyser trace will actually show packets with the sap values set to
>either 4 or 5 depending on whether the packet is a command or response.
>So, if you wanted to specify and access list for permitting traffic
>between two stations using a sap of 4, you would need to use something
>like 'access-list 201 permit 0x0404 0x0101' where the second part is a
>mask that says to ignore the low oorder bits of the SSAP and DSAP.
>
>With regards to whether traffic on a particular sap is interactive or
>file transfer, I'm afraid it is very difficult to determine. It is
>quite possible to have interactive sessions and batch sessions running
>over the same LLC2 connection. In fact, it is possible to run file
>transfers over and interactive session. As a result, if you are trying
>to do any sort of QOS, you will need to use LU prioritisation, and work
>in conjunction with the SNA networking people to determine which LUs are
>used for interactive, and which are batch.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jack Heney [mailto:jheneyccie@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 3:29 AM
>To: Simon Baxter; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: DLSW prioritzation - Results
>
>
>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/8r
>book/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