From: Michelle T (mtruman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jan 11 2001 - 00:35:30 GMT-3
You're right on both counts. The trick probably won't apply to the lab, so
it's good for my own playing around with, but I'll need to know clearly when
to convert. Then, on the second note, I better practice my conversion!
Thanks for taking the time, someone else pointed it too. I'm glad people
actually read these things!
Michelle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Maurello" <amaurello@mindspring.com>
To: "'Michelle T'" <mtruman@mn.mediaone.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:29 PM
Subject: RE: More Canonical to Non-canonical in DLSW
> Michelle:
>
> I think I understand your question. After configuring dlsw+ on both
routers
> and building your basic peerings, you can see both the canonical and
> non-canonical addresses depending on which bridge you view. If you do a
> "show bridge", you will see the standard non-canonical ethernet address.
If
> you do a show dlsw reach (that will show the local reachability macs),
they
> will be in canonical format. The tricky part if determining which
> non-canonical address relates to which canonical address. I wouldn't
trust
> this trick, since you will not have an actual ethernet node on the dlsw
peer
> in the lab exam.
>
> Also, I ran your conversion just for kicks and I think you are off by a
> byte. I get 00-20-30-d0-08-00, you have the same string except 00-00 at
the
> beginning. I'm not sure what happened here.
>
> - Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Michelle T
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:02 PM
> To: Earl Aboytes; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: More Canonical to Non-canonical in DLSW
>
>
> 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 - 10:27:27 GMT-3