From: Jack Heney (jheneyccie@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Nov 01 2000 - 19:11:09 GMT-3
I seem to have further isolated my problem....I replaced HostA with another
router (RtrC), and once this router was configured, the show rif command on
RtrC showed the MAC address of RtrA (reversed due to media translation) and
an accurate RIF (0890.004B.003C.0020)....At least I think this is an
accurate RIF (it seeems to indicate that it uses ring 2 to bridge 12 to ring
3 to bridge 11 to ring 4, which is what I think should happen).....To me,
the fact that RtrC can learn RtrA's MAC and the appropriate RIF seems to
indicate that I have the token ring portion of the network configured
properly and that the translation works from TR to Ether.....Since I keep
getting the "duplicate ring" error when I try to ping RtrC from RtrA, I
think my problem lies somewhere in the translation from ethernet to token
ring....When I debug arp, I don't get any encapsulation failed messages, I
simply don't get any responses. Any ideas?
jack
>From: "Jack Heney" <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: "Jack Heney" <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>
>To: Dennis_Rogell@milgo.com, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: SR/TLB
>Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 21:05:17 GMT
>
>Oops....Yes it was a typo...RtrA has "bridge-group 1" and "bridge 1
>protocol
>ieee".
>
>I noticed something else interesting....When I try to ping RtrA from HostA,
>I don't get the duplicate ring error message that I get when I ping from
>RtrA to HostA.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>
>
>>From: "Rogell, Dennis" <Dennis_Rogell@milgo.com>
>>To: 'Jack Heney' <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>
>>Subject: RE: SR/TLB
>>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:04:18 -0500
>>
>>Jack
>>On rtra I did not see a bridge-group statement is that a typo
>>
>>Dennis Rogell
>>Email : dennis_rogell@milgocom
>>Phone: (954) 426-2581
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Jack Heney [SMTP:jheneyccie@hotmail.com]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 12:35
>> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> > Subject: SR/TLB
>> >
>> > I'm having trouble getting SR/TLB to work...Here's my config:
>> >
>> > RtrA--------------RtrB---------------HostA
>> > ether token
>> >
>> > RtrA:
>> > interface fastethernet 0/0
>> > ip address 10.1.1.2 255.255.255.0
>> >
>> >
>> > RtrB:
>> > no ip routing
>> > source-bridge ring-group 3
>> > source-bridge transparent 3 4 11 1
>> > interface ethernet 0/0
>> > bridge-group 1
>> > interface tokenring 0/0
>> > source-bridge spanning 1
>> > source-bridge 2 12 3
>> > ring-speed 16
>> > bridge 1 protocol ieee
>> >
>> > HostA has an IP address of 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
>> >
>> > My understanding is that the above configuration should cause traffic
>>on
>> > the
>> > Token RIng network to be bridged to ring 3 (virtual-ring), which then
>> > bridges it to pseudo-ring 4 (actually ethernet bridge-group 1).
>>However,
>> > pings do not seem to be able to cross the bridge.
>> >
>> > When I "debug source bridge" on RtrB and try to ping HostA from RtrA,
>>this
>> >
>> > is the output (I also included the output of "show source-bridge"):
>> >
>> > 00:03:06: VRING: forward explorer, bn 12 trn 2, [C810.004B.003C.0020]
>> > 00:03:06: VRING: forward pak (srn 3 bn 11 trn 2), src: 8010.4b95.56ce
>>dst:
>> >
>> > 0030.
>> > 8004.49e0, [0890.004B.003C.0020]
>> > 00:03:06: SRB0: explorer enqueued (srn 2 bn 12 trn 3)
>> > 00:03:06: SRB0: duplicate ring violation, s: 800c.0120.9207 d:
>> > ffff.ffff.ffff ri
>> > f: C810.004B.003C.0020
>> > 00:03:08: VRING: forward explorer, bn 12 trn 2, [C810.004B.003C.0020]
>> > 00:03:08: VRING: forward pak (srn 3 bn 11 trn 2), src: 8010.4b95.56ce
>>dst:
>> >
>> > 0030.
>> > 8004.49e0, [0890.004B.003C.0020]
>> > 00:03:08: SRB0: explorer enqueued (srn 2 bn 12 trn 3)
>> > 00:03:08: SRB0: duplicate ring violation, s: 800c.0120.9207 d:
>> > ffff.ffff.ffff ri
>> > f: C810.004B.003C.0020
>> > 00:03:10: VRING: forward explorer, bn 12 trn 2, [C810.004B.003C.0020]
>> > 00:03:10: VRING: forward pak (srn 3 bn 11 trn 2), src: 8010.4b95.56ce
>>dst:
>> >
>> > 0030.
>> > 8004.49e0, [0890.004B.003C.0020]
>> > 00:03:10: SRB0: explorer enqueued (srn 2 bn 12 trn 3)
>> > 00:03:10: SRB0: duplicate ring violation, s: 800c.0120.9207 d:
>> > ffff.ffff.ffff ri
>> > f: C810.004B.003C.0020
>> > 00:03:12: VRING: forward explorer, bn 12 trn 2, [C810.004B.003C.0020]
>> > 00:03:12: VRING: forward pak (srn 3 bn 11 trn 2), src: 8010.4b95.56ce
>>dst:
>> >
>> > 0030.
>> > 8004.49e0, [0890.004B.003C.0020]
>> > 00:03:12: SRB0: explorer enqueued (srn 2 bn 12 trn 3)
>> > 00:03:12: SRB0: duplicate ring violation, s: 800c.0120.9207 d:
>> > ffff.ffff.ffff ri
>> > f: C810.004B.003C.0020
>> > 00:03:14: VRING: forward explorer, bn 12 trn 2, [C810.004B.003C.0020]
>> > 00:03:14: VRING: forward pak (srn 3 bn 11 trn 2), src: 8010.4b95.56ce
>>dst:
>> >
>> > 0030.
>> > 8004.49e0, [0890.004B.003C.0020]
>> > 00:03:14: SRB0: explorer enqueued (srn 2 bn 12 trn 3)
>> > 00:03:14: SRB0: duplicate ring violation, s: 800c.0120.9207 d:
>> > ffff.ffff.ffff ri
>> > f: C810.004B.003C.0020
>> >
>> > RtrB#sh source-bridge
>> >
>> > Local Interfaces: receive transmit
>> > srn bn trn r p s n max hops cnt cnt
>> > drops
>> > To0/0 2 12 3 * f 7 7 7 5 7
>>5
>> >
>> > Global RSRB Parameters:
>> > TCP Queue Length maximum: 100
>> >
>> > Ring Group 3:
>> > No TCP peername set, TCP transport disabled
>> > Maximum output TCP queue length, per peer: 100
>> > Rings:
>> > bn: 12 rn: 2 local ma: 400b.5d1b.f681 TokenRing0/0 fwd:
>>0
>> > bn: 11 rn: 4 locvrt ma: 400b.5d1b.f601 Bridge-group 1 fwd:
>>5
>> >
>> > Explorers: ------- input ------- ------- output -------
>> > spanning all-rings total spanning all-rings
>>total
>> > To0/0 0 0 0 7 0
>>7
>> >
>> > Explorer fastswitching enabled
>> > Local switched: 1 flushed 0 max Bps 38400
>> >
>> > rings inputs bursts throttles output
>>drops
>> > To0/0 0 0 0
>>0
>> >
>> > It looks like the RtrB recognizes that Ring 3 (the virtual-ring) is
>> > attached
>> > to the actual token ring (2) via bridge 12 and attached to the
>>pseudo-ring
>> >
>> > (4) via bridge 11, which is what I anticipated. It also seems to be
>> > forwarding the pings from RtrA to ring 3, but not from ring 3 to ring
>>2:
>> > bn: 12 rn: 2 local ma: 400b.5d1b.f681 TokenRing0/0 fwd:
>>0
>> > bn: 11 rn: 4 locvrt ma: 400b.5d1b.f601 Bridge-group 1 fwd:
>>5
>> >
>> > I can't figure out what the "duplicate ring violation" is referring to,
>> > because I made sure that I used different ring numbers for the actual
>> > token
>> > ring, the pseudo-ring, and the virtual-ring, but I'm guessing this is
>> > somehow related to my lack of connectivity.
>> > Can anyone shed some light on this situation for me?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jack
>> >
>> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:40 GMT-3