From: Atif Awan (atifawan@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Jan 12 2001 - 15:39:59 GMT-3
I totally agree that bgroup list will pull in the ethernet interfaces but it
will not prevent the ethernet to communicate with token ring. And till now i
havent seen any satisfactory answer to the question.
When you are defining a ring-list it does show that you can put in virtual
ring numbers too and i think they are only significant when you are talking
about ethernet in DLSw because an ethernet is represented as a virtual ring
to DLSw while the token ring already has a ring number. Maybe i am wrong but
discussion does help :)
Regards
Atifg
>From: "Michelle T" <mtruman@mn.mediaone.net>
>To: "Atif Awan" <atifawan@hotmail.com>, <RonnieR@globaldatasys.com>,
><ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: Re: DLSw - Establishing Broadcast Domains between an Enet and a
>Token Ring
>Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:12:34 -0600
>
>Atif,
>
>Kudos to you for thinking outside the box. But let me test my understanding
>of dlsw to
>say that I don't think this will work. I believe it is the "dlsw
>bridge-group x" statement
>that pulls the transparent bridge group, thus the ethernets into the dlsw
>domain. I believe
>the "source-bridge ring-group xxx" statement is used to pull in
>source-bridged rings only.
>So using the virtual ring to attempt to allow packets to the ethernet
>shouldn't work. Using
>a bgroup-list should though. I don't know if the bgroup-list will
>automatically exclude the rings or not.
>Maybe someone else can say?
>
>
>Michelle
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Atif Awan" <atifawan@hotmail.com>
>To: <RonnieR@globaldatasys.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 3:52 AM
>Subject: Re: DLSw - Establishing Broadcast Domains between an Enet and a
>Token Ring
>
>
> > It was me who had asked the question and yes you are right that there
>has
> > been no satisfactory answer till now. In your configuration i think you
>do
> > not need the bgroups list and the ring list in R1 and R3 respectively.
>R2
>is
> > the router that will separate these broadcast domains.
> >
> > Defining a bgroup list and binding it with the peer session to R1 will
>not
> > stop R1 from communicating with the token ring i think. What i have
>finally
> > come up with is that define two ring lists in such a way :
> >
> > R2
> >
> > dlsw local-peer peer-id 2.2.2.2
> > dlsw remote-peer 1 tcp 1.1.1.1
> > dlsw remote-peer 3 tcp 3.3.3.3
> > dlsw bridge-group 1
> >
> > dlsw ring-list 1 rings 200
> > dlsw ring-list 3 rings 2
> >
> > source-bridge ring-group 200
> >
> > int e0
> > bridge-group 1
> >
> > int token 0
> > source-bridge 2 1 200
> > source-bridge spannig
> >
> > bridge 1 protocol ieee
> >
> > Ring list 1 will only allow dlsw to send traffic to ring 200 which is
>the
> > virtual ring and ethernet will b represented through this ring to DLSw.
> >
> > Ring list 3 will allow router2 to only communicate with the token ring 2
>and
> > not the virtual ring which represents the ethernet segment. Well, all
>this
> > is a theoretical assumption and i have not checked it in the lab due to
>some
> > limitations so anyone who can provide some more insight is more than
> > welcome.
> >
> > Regards
> > Atif
> >
> > >From: Ronnie Royston <RonnieR@globaldatasys.com>
> > >Reply-To: Ronnie Royston <RonnieR@globaldatasys.com>
> > >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: DLSw - Establishing Broadcast Domains between an Enet and a
>Token
> > >Ring
> > >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:26:02 -0600
> > >
> > >A couple of days ago, someone asked how you would configure three
>routers
> > >for DLSw as follows:
> > >
> > > enet-R1--------R2--------R3-token ring
> > > / \
> > > / \
> > > enet token ring
> > >
> > >Make R2 peer with R1 and R3. Explorers from the ethernets should not
> > >traverse the token rings and vice versa. I do not remember a clear
>answer
> > >being posted, so, I thought I'd post what I've come up with. Please
>remark
> > >it this will not work, or there is a better, easier way. Thanks.
> > >
> > >R1:
> > >dlsw local peer 1.1.1.1
> > >dlsw remote 15 tcp 2.2.2.2
> > >dlsw bgroup-list 15 bgroups 1
> > >dlsw bridge-group 1
> > >!
> > >bridge 1 proto ieee
> > >!
> > >int e0
> > >bridge-g 1
> > >
> > >R2:
> > >source-bridg ring-g 100
> > >dlsw local peer 2.2.2.2
> > >dlsw remote 15 tcp 1.1.1.1
> > >dlsw remote 20 tcp 3.3.3.3
> > >dlsw bgroup-list 15 bgroups 1
> > >dlsw ring-list 20 rings 2
> > >dlsw bridge-group 1
> > >!
> > >bridge 1 proto ieee
> > >!
> > >int e0
> > >bridge-group 1
> > >!
> > >int to0
> > >source-bridge ring-group 2 1 100
> > >
> > >R3:
> > >source-bridg ring-g 100
> > >dlsw local peer 3.3.3.3
> > >dlsw remote 20 tcp 2.2.2.2
> > >dlsw ring-list 20 rings 3
> > >!
> > >int to0
> > >source-b ring-g 3 1 100
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:28 GMT-3