From: Fred Ingham (fningham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Jan 05 2001 - 23:53:33 GMT-3
First look - yes it answers the questions. I haven't tested it.
Other comments:
You don't need remote peer statements on r4 and r5.
You don't need promiscuous on r2.
I don't like to configure the same ring numbers on different routers
although
I have had people tell me it works (RIF termination).
My style would be to have ring 25 on r2 and ring 26 on d5
and have both use ring-group 200. (Comes from a background using RSRB.)
With EN you can test the concepts by attaching Windows hosts to the
ethernets and establish sessions between them.
Your peers are correct. On r2 you should see 2 conf peers, on r4 and r5
you should see 1 prom peer. If you had hosts you would see the other
peers as pod on r4 and r5.
In the lab do what is asked, nothing more, nothing less.
HTH, Fred
"BUI, TIN T (SBCSI)" wrote:
>
> I don't have token ring (only ethernet) in my lab network so I cannot test
> this. Can someone tell me if this configuration answers the questions
> below?
>
> The layout looks like: R2 tokenring, R4 tokenring, and R5 ethernet. Here is
> a question from one of my practice labs.
>
> Scenario: Configure R2, R4, and R5 for DLSW. Configure filter so that the
> only protocol that is transported via dlsw is netbios and apply this filter
> to R2 remote peer statements. Ensure that R4 inform all his peers that R4
> can only reach mac 4444.4444.4444.
>
> Here is what I think my configuration would look like:
>
> R5:
> dlsw local-peer peer-id 150.100.5.5 group 100 promiscuous
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 150.100.2.2
> dlsw bridge-group 1
> int loopback 0
> ip address 150.100.5.5 255.255.255.0
> int e0
> bridge-group 1
> bridge 1 protocol ieee
>
> R2:
> source-bridge ring-group 200
> dlsw local-peer peer-id 150.100.2.2 group 100 border promiscuous
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 150.100.4.4 lsap-output-list 200
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 150.100.5.5 lsap-output-list 200
> int loopback 0
> ip address 150.100.2.2 255.255.255.0
> int token0
> source-bridge 25 1 200
> source-bridge spanning
> access-list 200 permit 0xF0F0 0x0101
>
> R4:
> source-bridge ring-group 400
> dlsw local-peer peer-id 150.100.4.4 group 100 promiscuous
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 150.100.2.2
> dlsw icanreach mac-exclusive
> dlsw icanreach mac-address 4444.4444.4444 mask ffff.ffff.ffff
> int loopback 0
> ip address 150.100.4.4 255.255.255.0
> int token0
> source-bridge 25 1 400
> source-bridge spanning
>
> Questions:
> 1. Is this a correct configuration? Can someone try this out and let me
> know or give me a sample configuration that does work and accomplishes these
> tasks?
> 2. If I do "show dlsw peer" on r2, I see 2 connected peers (R5 & R4).
> However, if I use same command on R4 or R5, I only see 1 connected peer. Is
> it because when you use border peers, the connections are dynamic
> (connections brought up only when needed) ? On lab exam, should I not use
> border peers hub/spoke and just type out all remote peers?
> 3. If I do "show dlsw capabilities" on R2, I see that reachable mac address
> as correct. Is this the only way I can verify that my configuration is
> working as I have no actual hosts to test with?
>
> thanks
>
> > Tin T. Bui
> > Senior Network Manager
> > Network Management Center
> > SBC Services Inc.
> > 7337 Trade Street, Rm 1110
> > San Diego, Ca 92121
> > Office #: 858-886-4644/858-886-4589
> > Pager #: 858-494-0482
> > Fax #: 858-549-4103
> > Email: tb4565@sbc.com
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:23 GMT-3