From: Atif Awan (atifawan@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Jan 12 2001 - 16:22:40 GMT-3
Yup this is where the confusion lies ... Please let me know if you find out
anything ... i am also looking for it ( for sometime now )
>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 10:03:58 -0600
>
>I'm not sure that's exactly what I am saying. If you define a port list or
>a
>bgroup list or a ring list, are you
>not telling the remote peer what can be accessed exclusively? In other
>words, if I set up a port list that
>allows access to my token rings, and there is also a bridge-group/dlsw
>bridge group on that router, is
>the remote peer denied access to the bridge group because the port list
>exists and defines only token rings?
>If I define a ring list, does that preclude access to my bridge groups? Or
>have not effect at all...
>
>
>I am searching for details on this as to the exclusivity of the ring/port
>lists.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Atif Awan" <atifawan@hotmail.com>
>To: <mtruman@mn.mediaone.net>; <RonnieR@globaldatasys.com>;
><ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 3:39 PM
>Subject: Re: DLSw - Establishing Broadcast Domains between an Enet and a
>Token Ring
>
>
> >
> > 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