From: Mark Lewis (markl11@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Oct 11 2000 - 17:02:03 GMT-3
Yep, you should use the 'promiscuous' keyword on ALL the boxes in your peer
group scenario - even the border peers. If you do that, then you get any to
any connectivity without the use of a full-mesh (ie fully meshed remote peer
statements) - the whole point of peer-groups (remember peer-on-demand?!).
On the clients you should 'point' to the border peer (they only need one
remote peer statement).
The border peers also only need one remote peer statement and that should
point to the border peer in the other group (assuming only two groups).
You can configure it in slightly different ways, but that is probably the
most 'efficient' (least remote peer statements).
The peer-on-demand-defaults command configures COMMON parameters for you
on-demand connections (eg. keepalive interval,cost,inactivity, common
netbios host filters,etc,etc..).
Hope that helps,
Mark
CCIE#6280
>From: Timur.Mirza@Notes.airtouch.com
>Reply-To: Timur.Mirza@Notes.airtouch.com
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: 3 days b4 lab! on a dlsw border peer CLIENT, do i need to...
>Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:14:10 -0700
>
>
>
>use "promiscuous" at the end of the "dlsw local-peer peer-id" statement OR
>use
>the "dlsw peer-on-demand defaults tcp" statement? i'll try to test this if
>i get
>a chance, but does anyone know offhand?
>
>-timur
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:25 GMT-3