From: Bernard Dunn (dunn@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Jan 12 2001 - 02:50:52 GMT-3
Yes.. absolutely.
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Michelle T wrote:
> Bernard,
>
> Canonical=MSB and Non=LSB, yes?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bernard Dunn" <dunn@cisco.com>
> To: "Anthony Maurello" <amaurello@mindspring.com>
> Cc: "'Michelle T'" <mtruman@mn.mediaone.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 1:32 AM
> Subject: RE: More Canonical to Non-canonical in DLSW
>
>
> > Tony,
> >
> > Just be careful about the canonical/non-canonical term:
> >
> > non-canonical = token ring
> > canonical = ethernet
> >
> > the bitswapping tool has a pretty good graphic explaination on how to
> > manually convert addresses:
> >
> > http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/Bitswap/bitswap.pl
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Bernard.
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Anthony Maurello wrote:
> >
> > > 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 - 10:27:28 GMT-3