From: Michelle T (mtruman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Jan 10 2001 - 19:01:53 GMT-3
RE: More Canonical to Non-canonical in DLSWAha! I just realized, I didn't
say exactly what I meant. If I hard code an icanreach into the peer
statement, then I have to convert it to non-can. yes? And wasn't there a way
to do a show dlsw command to get this conversion without having to perform
it?
I should have made that clear. Not a dynamic icanreach, but a statically
defined icanreach on the peer statement. And then I presume R2 gets it and
tranlates it back for the ethernet group and leaves it as is for the token
ring users.
----- Original Message -----
From: Earl Aboytes
To: 'Michelle T' ; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:47 PM
Subject: RE: More Canonical to Non-canonical in DLSW
In this case you would see R1 advertise non-canonical to R2 and R2 would NOT
have to convert it.
Earl Aboytes, CCIE 6097
-----Original Message-----
From: Michelle T [mailto:mtruman@mn.mediaone.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:35 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: More Canonical to Non-canonical in DLSW
----Bridge 1
E0
Bridge 1 E0--- R1 ------------------ R2 ----Ring 1 T0
Ok, More on canonical vs. non-canonical with the icanreach statement
R1 has a peer statement to R2 and wishes to advertise a device that resides
on R1-E0. Mac address is 0004.0c0b.1000
R2 has both token ring and ethernet sna users.
Does the R1 icanreach advertise the native 0004.0c0b.1000? (ethernet,
canonical)? I think that it does not.
So R1 advertises icanreach 2030.d008.0000 (feel free to check my
conversion).
Then does DLSW convert it back on R2 for the ethernet bridge group but not
convert it for the Token ring users?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:26 GMT-3