From: Raymond May (raymay30@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jan 09 2001 - 14:10:45 GMT-3
Robert,
I do not see any need in defining the frame size. I have never done so
in the past. Second question I would create remote peers to the Ethernet if
a loopback was not configured. Lets say you had multiple sub interfaces on a
HUB router it would not be wise to peer to any one in particular as this
would take DLSW down for all remote peers if that PVC failed. Where if the
Ethernet interface went down this would then warrant a real failure and all
tunnels would disconnect. Hope that helps.
Ray May
>From: "Robert DeVito" <robertdevito@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: "Robert DeVito" <robertdevito@hotmail.com>
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Two DLSW Questions....
>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 06:39:43
>
>Group,
>
>1.) When peering from a router with a ethernet interface accross the WAN to
>a router with a token ring interface, is it necessary to define the maximum
>fame size, i.e. "lf 1500" in the remote-peer statements? I have seen it
>done
>both ways and want to know the "correct" way.
>
> e0 s0 s0 e0
>2.) |---R1-----/-----R2---|
> When setting up DLSW from R1's e0 to R2's e0. I understand the
>local-peer
>address would be e0's ip address. But when I set up the remote-peer address
>statement, would the remote-peer statement on R1 be R2's E0 or R2's S0? I
>have seen it done both ways also.
>
>Thanks in advance!
>Robert DeVitoRobert DeVito
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:25 GMT-3