From: Chuck Larrieu (chuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Nov 03 2000 - 12:20:32 GMT-3
Again, to put everything into terms of the OSI model ( ugh ) bridging of any
kind is layer two. At the network layer, all end devices would be addressed
as part of the same subnet. The ARP request goes out, essentially at layer
two, and the layer 2 frame traverses the bridges, whether they be SRB,
SR/TLB, or plain old TB.
Host----device-----device------device------host
What happens at each layer as data goes from host to host? The layer two
header contains a source MAC and a destination MAC. That is what the bridges
of various types concern themselves with.
If some wacky application is using MACs as part of the data, then this is
exactly the same problem as one has when applications hard code IP addresses
into the data, and you are NAT'ing or worse VPN'ing.
IP networks work just fine in a bridged ( switched, these days )
environment.
My lecture for the day.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
George Spahl
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 3:52 AM
To: Jack Heney; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: SR/TLB - problem & solution
Jack,
While it's true that SR/TLB doesn't work perfectly, that is, not for every
protocol, the ones that it doesn't work for are few and far between (and
ping isn't one of those). It actually looks inside the packets of some
protocols and converts the embedded MAC address(es). I believe there must
be some other problem. Just my two cents.
George
At 03:15 AM 11/3/00 +0000, Jack Heney wrote:
>
>
>
>>From: "Rogell, Dennis" <Dennis_Rogell@milgo.com>
>>To: 'Jack Heney' <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>
>>Subject: RE: SR/TLB - problem & solution
>>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:01:03 -0500
>>
>>Good deal Jack
>>
>>Dennis Rogell
>>Email : dennis_rogell@milgocom
>>Phone: (954) 426-2581
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Jack Heney [SMTP:jheneyccie@hotmail.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 00:09
>> > To: Dennis_Rogell@milgo.com
>> > Subject: RE: SR/TLB - problem & solution
>> >
>> > I think I have discovered my true problem...What I am trying to do is
>> > impossible...According to http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/701/4.html
>>you
>> > can not translationally bridge routable protocols because they
sometimes
>> > carry MAC addresses in the data portion of the frame, and the data
>>portion
>> >
>> > cannot be reliably converted from cannonical to non-cannonical and vice
>> > versa. When I tested my SR/TLB configuration out with 2 PC's using
>> > NetBEUI,
>> > it worked fine. Thanks to all who have helped, and if anyone does know
>>of
>> > a
>> > way to traslationally bridge IP, please let me know.
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jack
>> >
>> >
>> > >From: "Rogell, Dennis" <Dennis_Rogell@milgo.com>
>> > >To: 'Jack Heney ' <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>
>> > >Subject: RE: SR/TLB - problem
>> > >Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 20:03:06 -0500
>> > >
>> > >Jack
>> > >I will set this up in my lab tomorrow morning and let you know. Off
the
>> > top
>> > >my head your debug stated duplicate ring errors so it sounds like it
>> > could
>> > >be in the translation. Why don't you take the ethernet mac address
>> > >coonvert the bit swapping and see if it comes up with the proper
>> > >conversion.I will check back with you tomorrow morning.
>> > >-----Original Message-----
>> > >From: Jack Heney
>> > >To: jheneyccie@hotmail.com; Dennis_Rogell@milgo.com;
>> > ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> > >Sent: 11/01/2000 5:11 PM
>> > >Subject: RE: SR/TLB - problem
>> > >
>> > >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 - 08:25:41 GMT-3