From: Simon Baxter (Simon.Baxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Dec 07 2000 - 00:14:25 GMT-3
AHHHHHH
Now I understand...
The border peer adds an extra field to the reachability list "Group"
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
0000.f640.64ca FOUND REMOTE 1.1.1.2(2065)
0008.de9c.0d56 FOUND REMOTE 2.2.2.2(2065)
0009.d481.dbdf FOUND REMOTE 2.2.2.2(2065)
0055.0025.c9dd FOUND REMOTE 2.2.2.2(2065)
1111.1111.1111 UNCONFIRM REMOTE 1.1.1.2(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
BRIAN FOUND REMOTE 1.1.1.2(2065)
MACHINE FOUND REMOTE 2.2.2.2(2065)
DLSW Group NetBIOS Name reachability cache list
NetBIOS Name Group
MACHINE 80
And because the group peers are configured for promiscuous, they get a
reflected connection from the border peer.
It works both ways :
group70-------grp70bdr---------group70
(wasn't expecting)
and
group70--------grp70bdr-------grp80bdr
(as expected)
cool.
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Baxter
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 10:35 AM
To: 'Justin Menga'
Subject: RE: More DLSW peer questions...
I'd be interested to hear what subjects you thought you needed more work
on...
I was mostly the victim of stress on 4/9.
I did do some stupid things though...
I also studyed too much difficult stuff the first time, missing out
practicing the "meat and veg"
ie I had AURP appletalk interdomain re-mapping and DEC4-5/OSI-cloud/DEC5-4
down pat, but wasn't confident on dlsw simple peering and sap filtering...
I've tried this time to avoid the too clever stuff, like ATM dynamic queues
etc etc - and get comfortable with AT autodiscovery, BGP, OSPF etc etc....
I reckon I'll do well this time.
Did your day2 stuff include any nasties? Like running NAT/IPSec/FW on the
same interface?? I know the kit list has changed a bit in Sydney -
aparently the 4000's gone, replaced with 3640, and all boxes are running
12.0...as far as I can tell, that's only a good thing. All routers
supporting IPSec (not CET - yuck), a nice few commands like "show ip rip
data" and fixing of OSPF RIDs - and "clear ip ospf process".
I should be studying, not typing emails!!
Cheers,
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Menga [mailto:Justin.Menga@computerland.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:13 AM
To: 'Wetherton, Warren'; 'Simon Baxter'; Justin Menga
Subject: RE: More DLSW peer questions...
Hey,
I'm sitting Dec 19th/20th, my second attempt. I sat in September, but I was
way underprepared and should ace it now.
Laurence was a strange character, not as forthcoming as some of the US
proctors sound.
I think Simon we may have even sat at the same time - are you from
Wellington originally and now live in Melbourne and obviously work for
Logical?
Best of luck Simon - share your experiences good or bad......
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