From: Rick Burts (burts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 13:06:30 GMT-3
I think what you have said is correct.
The first example uses bridge number 2 for both the physical
ring/bridge connection as well as the logical connection to
the transparent domain and the second example uses different
numbers. The second example might be a bit more explicit
about the relationships, but both examples are ok.
The first example does not break the rule about duplicate
bridge numbers because the bridge number is connecting
different ring numbers.
Rick
Rick Burts, CCSI CCIE 4615 burts@mentortech.com
Mentor Technologies 240-568-6500 ext 6652
133 National Business Parkway 240-568-6515 fax
Annapolis Junction, Md 20701
Chesapeake Network Solutions has now become Mentor Technologies.
Mentor Technologies is a certified Cisco Training Partner and also
a Cisco Professional Services partner.
We offer most of the Cisco training courses.
We also offer training in Checkpoint Firewall software and
Fore Systems (now Marconi) and MicroMuse.
We also provide network consulting services including
design, management, and problem solving.
We have 24 CCIEs on our staff.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Justin Menga wrote:
> OK - so logically is it like this from my config below:
>
> Ring 10 ----- Bridge 2 ------ Ring 1000 -------- *Bridge 2 ------- Ring 2000
> (=TB 1)
>
> The *Bridge 2 is specified by third number in source-bridge 1000 2000 2 1??
> Based on your reply, doesn't this break the rule of identical bridge numbers
> (probably, but this is a purely logical connection with no hosts on the
> intermediate ring so does it really matter).
>
>
> So I could also have the following with:
>
> source-bridge transparent 1000 2000 *4 1
> int to0
> source-bridge 10 **2 1000
>
> Ring 10 ----- **Bridge 2 ----- Ring 1000 ----- *Bridge 4 ----- Ring 2000
> (=TB1)
>
> Does this make logical sense??
>
> Regards,
>
> Justin Menga MCSE+I CCNP CCSE ASE
> WAN Specialist
> Computerland New Zealand
> PO Box 3631, Auckland
> DDI: (+64) 9 360 4864 Mobile: (+64) 25 349 599
> mailto: justin.menga@computerland.co.nz
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Burts [mailto:burts@mentortech.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 December 2000 2:32 a.m.
> To: Justin Menga
> Cc: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: Re: SR/TLB
>
>
> see comments in line
>
> Rick Burts, CCSI CCIE 4615 burts@mentortech.com
> Mentor Technologies 240-568-6500 ext 6652
> 133 National Business Parkway 240-568-6515 fax
> Annapolis Junction, Md 20701
>
> Chesapeake Network Solutions has now become Mentor Technologies.
> Mentor Technologies is a certified Cisco Training Partner and also
> a Cisco Professional Services partner.
> We offer most of the Cisco training courses.
> We also offer training in Checkpoint Firewall software and
> Fore Systems (now Marconi) and MicroMuse.
> We also provide network consulting services including
> design, management, and problem solving.
> We have 24 CCIEs on our staff.
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Justin Menga wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a few questions on SR/TLB
> >
> > sample config:
> >
> > source-bridge ring-group 1000
> > source-bridge transparent 1000 2000 2 1
> >
> > bridge 1 protocol ieee
> >
> > int to0
> > source-bridge 10 2 1000
> >
> > int e0
> > bridge-group 1
> >
> > In the above config, the problem I have understanding is the transparent
> > command, particularly the last two numbers. The third number is the
> "bridge
> > no of the bridge that leads to the transparent bridging domain". Does
> this
> > mean the bridge as specified in the source-bridge command under to0. THe
>
> It does not necessarily mean the bridge specified in the source bridge
> command. It is defining a bridge number of a bridge that links the
> logical source route domain with the logical transparent domain. It
> must be a valid source route bridge number.
>
> > fourth number is the number of the TB-Group - I understand this.
> >
> > I have seen configs that use different bridge numbers than those under the
> > interfaces - will this still work?
>
> different bridge numbers than those under the interface will work as long
> as it is a valid source route bridge number.
> >
> > Last question: In a SRB network (without DLSW), do the bridge numbers
> have
> > to be unique?? (I know the ring numbers need to be)
>
> in general the bridge numbers do not have to be unique. There is exactly
> one circumstance where the bridge numbers must be unique and that is the
> situation where two rings are connected by two bridges, in which case the
> two bridge numbers must be unique.
>
> >
> > Regards - 14 days in SYDNEY.....
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:59 GMT-3