From: Tony Olzak (aolzak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Dec 05 2000 - 20:37:09 GMT-3
I don't believe you have to when you are using peer groups and peer on
demand. DLSw+ is my weak area, so any input would be appreciated.
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Baxter" <Simon.Baxter@au.logical.com>
To: "Tony Olzak" <aolzak@buckeye-express.com>; "CCIE Group Study (E-mail)"
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 7:11 PM
Subject: RE: More DLSW peer questions...
> I understood the 'promiscuous' keyword allowed connections from
unconfigured
> peers. Wouldn't that imply the remote peer (anothe spoke) would still
need
> a 'dlsw remote-peer' for the local peer (spoke)??
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Olzak [mailto:aolzak@buckeye-express.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 3:19 AM
> To: Simon Baxter; CCIE Group Study (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: More DLSW peer questions...
>
>
> Just make sure you use the promiscuous keyword to let other peers use
> resources without explicitly defining a peer relationship.
>
> Tony
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Baxter" <Simon.Baxter@au.logical.com>
> To: "CCIE Group Study (E-mail)" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:13 AM
> Subject: More DLSW peer questions...
>
>
> > Can the members of a peer group share resources via the border peer?
Or
> do
> > all peers within a group have to be fully meshed??
> >
> >
> >
> > cheers!!
> >
> > (in advance)
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:59 GMT-3