From: Simon Baxter (Simon.Baxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 22:39:28 GMT-3
I also just tried this with
----BOT-----------4500-----------R1
group70 grp70bdr grp80bdr
and the icanreach stuff is only sent from a group-peer to it's border peer -
it's not sent to the neighbor border peer.
ie
BOT has a dlsw icanreach-mac, 4500 learns of it (unconfirm) but doesn't pass
it to R1 regardless of whether R1 is a grp70 peer or a grp80 bdr-peer.
I guess once there's a station on either remote segment sending out explorer
frames the reachabilities/capabilities get passed???
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Baxter
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 11:10 AM
To: 'Wetherton, Warren'; Simon Baxter; Justin Menga; 'CCIE Group Study
(E-mail)'
Subject: RE: More DLSW peer questions...
I gather this won't happen unless there's a canureach sent though...
BOT-4500-R1
*****************
BOT#sh dlsw re
DLSw Local MAC address reachability cache list
Mac Addr status Loc. port rif
0009.d481.dbdf FOUND LOCAL TBridge-001 --no rif--
DLSw Remote MAC address reachability cache list
Mac Addr status Loc. peer
DLSw Local NetBIOS Name reachability cache list
NetBIOS Name status Loc. port rif
DLSw Remote NetBIOS Name reachability cache list
NetBIOS Name status Loc. peer
*****************
4500#sh dlsw re
DLSw Local MAC address reachability cache list
Mac Addr status Loc. port rif
DLSw Remote MAC address reachability cache list
Mac Addr status Loc. peer
0009.d481.dbdf FOUND REMOTE 2.2.2.2(2065)
DLSw Group MAC address reachability cache list
Mac Addr Group
DLSw Local NetBIOS Name reachability cache list
NetBIOS Name status Loc. port rif
DLSw Remote NetBIOS Name reachability cache list
NetBIOS Name status Loc. peer
DLSW Group NetBIOS Name reachability cache list
NetBIOS Name Group
****************
R1#sh dlsw re
DLSw Local MAC address reachability cache list
Mac Addr status Loc. port rif
DLSw Remote MAC address reachability cache list
Mac Addr status Loc. peer
DLSw Local NetBIOS Name reachability cache list
NetBIOS Name status Loc. port rif
DLSw Remote NetBIOS Name reachability cache list
NetBIOS Name status Loc. peer
R1#
??
-----Original Message-----
From: Wetherton, Warren [mailto:warren.wetherton@csfb.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 11:01 AM
To: 'Simon Baxter'; Justin Menga
Subject: RE: More DLSW peer questions...
R2 is border - it will forward CUR to other borders and peers in its own
group. R3 (remote peer) will recieve CUR and respond with ICR which is then
relayed back to R1. R1 will receive ICR and based on information in the ICR
will establish connection to R3 for frames to flow.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Baxter [SMTP:Simon.Baxter@au.logical.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 11:39 AM
> To: Justin Menga; 'Wetherton, Warren'; Simon Baxter
> Subject: RE: More DLSW peer questions...
>
> How will R1 initiate a connection? It won't actually establish a peering
> relationship with R3 will it? It doesn't have any of the remote peer's
> details....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Menga [mailto:Justin.Menga@computerland.co.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:09 AM
> To: 'Wetherton, Warren'; 'Simon Baxter'; Justin Menga
> Subject: RE: More DLSW peer questions...
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> If you have the following DLSW connections (physical topology is
> irrelevant):
>
> R1-------------R2---------------R3
>
> You configure R2 as a border peer for group x. You define R1 and R3 as
> promiscuous and belonging to group x, and define R2 as a configured peer
> on
> each router. On R2 you configure both peers.
>
> e.g.
>
> R1 (x.x.x.x):
>
> dlsw local-peer peer-id x.x.x.x group 10 promiscuous
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp y.y.y.y
>
>
> R2 (y.y.y.y):
>
> dlsw local-peer peer-id y.y.y.y group 10 border
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp x.x.x.x
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp z.z.z.z
>
> R3 (z.z.z.z):
>
> dlsw local-peer peer-id z.z.z.z group 10 promiscuous
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp y.y.y.y
>
> If R1 needs to initiate a connection to R3 it can do so in this
> configuration. Use show dlsw peers to confirm, the connection type on R1
> should be pod and on R3 should be prom.
>
> 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: Wetherton, Warren [mailto:warren.wetherton@csfb.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 December 2000 1:10 p.m.
> To: 'Simon Baxter'; Justin Menga
> Subject: RE: More DLSW peer questions...
>
>
> I will take the Sydney lab in Feb -- be interested to hear of your
> experiences. re the Dlsw peering, refer to the following url
>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/697/1.html
>
> my understanding is
>
> 1. spokes still need to be promiscuous for on-demand to work
> 2. border acts as hub to send CUR's and ICRs' between spokes and to other
> borders.
> 3. return ICR from border to spoke contains sending DLSw peer address
> allows
> the on-demand peering to happen (must have promiscuous enabled on spokes)
>
> hope this helps,
> warren
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Baxter [SMTP:Simon.Baxter@au.logical.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 11:19 AM
> > To: Justin Menga; 'Simon Baxter'; CCIE Group Study (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: More DLSW peer questions...
> >
> > Such as?
> >
> > dynamic peers still require configuration
> > promisusous peers still require connection from configured peers
> >
> > aren't all these options a method of peering - albeit only from one end?
> >
> > Is there no way for 2 spoke peers, only configured for peering with
> their
> > group border peer, to communicate without configuring any more on the
> > spokes
> > than :
> >
> > dlsw local peer x.x.x.x group 1
> > dlsw remot peer 0 tcp x.x.x.x
> >
> >
> > cheers...
> >
> >
> > PS Justin, is this your 1st attempt? I'm in Sydney next Tues for my
> > #2....hear the lab's changed a bit - and lawrence the proctor has been
> > replaced with henry....
> >
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Justin Menga [mailto:Justin.Menga@computerland.co.nz]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 7:55 PM
> > To: 'Simon Baxter'; CCIE Group Study (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: More DLSW peer questions...
> >
> >
> > Peers within a group do not require full meshing. You can use the
> > on-demand
> > features to allow peers to peer with another within the group.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Baxter [mailto:Simon.Baxter@au.logical.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 8:13 PM
> > To: CCIE Group Study (E-mail)
> > 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