From: BUI, TIN T (SBCSI) (tb4565@xxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jan 22 2001 - 15:30:51 GMT-3
It probably does not affect operation of how it works so I'll leave the
source-bridge statement in. However, I hope they don't take points off on
the lab.
> Tin T. Bui
> Senior Network Manager
> Network Management Center
> SBC Services Inc.
> 7337 Trade Street, Rm 1110
> San Diego, Ca 92121
> Office #: 858-886-4644/858-886-4589
> Pager #: 858-494-0482
> Fax #: 858-549-4103
> Email: tb4565@sbc.com
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Dellaca [mailto:rdellaca@bpopca.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 9:41 AM
To: cory.hebert-eds@eds.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com; BUI, TIN T (SBCSI);
fningham@worldnet.att.net; vicky_gupta1803@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Another dlsw question
I'd like to address point #2. I have also seen this on the CCIE Power
session presentation last year, however it's totally unnecessary. The
reason it's probably NOT a high priority to correct everyone is that it
doesn't hurt any thing to have it there. But I can tell you from my
production network with numerous dlsw peers with only ethernet, you
absolutely don't have to put in the source-bridge ring-group statement if
you're only using the dlsw for an ehternet segment.
You can prove it to yourself with netbeui-only stations on endpoints, like
the other thread going on here by Julie Ann.
>>> "BUI, TIN T (SBCSI)" <tb4565@sbc.com> 01/22 9:23 AM >>>
Ok, now you guys have confused me. Two questions:
First Question: I thought the whole idea of dlsw border peers is to avoid a
fully meshed system? If R4 need to initiate session, does R4 need remote
peer statement with R2 and then R2 will pass this info to R5 and vice versa?
Second Question: Here is config example taken directly from cisco cd showing
ethernet to token ring over WAN. I guess if I have my choice, I would have
to believe the Cisco cd over anything else unless someone can convince me
other wise. It would make sense to have the router with ethernet to have
"source-bridge ring-group #" as additional statement because I believe you
need to have a virtual ring that can connect the 2 routers.
Router A
!
source-bridge ring-group 2000
dlsw local-peer peer-id 150.150.1.1
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 150.150.2.1
!
interface Loopback0
ip address 150.150.1.1 255.255.255.0
!
interface Serial0
ip address 150.150.100.1 255.255.255.0
interface TokenRing0
ip address 150.150.10.1 255.255.255.0
ring-speed 16
source-bridge 1 1 2000
source-bridge spanning
Router B
source-bridge ring-group 2000
dlsw local-peer peer-id 150.150.2.1
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 150.150.1.1
dlsw bridge-group 1
!
interface Loopback0
ip address 150.150.2.1 255.255.255.0
!
interface Serial0
ip address 150.150.100.2 255.255.255.0
!
interface Ethernet0
ip address 150.150.30.1 255.255.255.0
bridge-group 1
!
bridge 1 protocol dec
> Tin T. Bui
> Senior Network Manager
> Network Management Center
> SBC Services Inc.
> 7337 Trade Street, Rm 1110
> San Diego, Ca 92121
> Office #: 858-886-4644/858-886-4589
> Pager #: 858-494-0482
> Fax #: 858-549-4103
> Email: tb4565@sbc.com
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Vikas Gupta [mailto:vicky_gupta1803@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 12:30 PM
To: Fred Ingham; Hebert, Cory J (cory.hebert@wcom.com); BUI, TIN T
(SBCSI); 'Ccielab (E-mail)'
Subject: Re: Another dlsw question
Fred,
How would R4 and R5 initiate first session when they
don't have any explicit remote-peer statements, they
will only accept connections (not initiate) and then
dlsw traffic can pass thru once the connection is
made. In this case the very first session has to be
from R2. Let's say any SNA device on R5 or R4 is
trying to connect to a SNA host anywhere in the
network and let us assume that there is nothing in the
Dlsw cache, the first thing Dlsw will do is send
explorers to all remote-peers but in this case there
are no remote-peer statements configured and hence
explorers will not be sent anywhere. If the SNA device
would have been on R2 side , explorers will be sent to
R4 and R5 as they are defined in remote-peer
statements.
Atleast this is my understanding. Any comments??
Vikas
--- Fred Ingham <fningham@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Agree on source-bridge ring group statement
> unnecessary on Ethernet
> routers. Disagree on which routers can initiate
> sessions. Remote peer
> statement only needs to be done on one side. R4 and
> R5 can initiate
> sessions to R2. R4 will not be able to initiate
> session with R5 and
> vice versa.
>
> Fred.
>
> "Hebert, Cory J (cory.hebert@wcom.com)" wrote:
> >
> > Tin,
> >
> > You wont need to use the statement "source-bridge
> ring-group 200" on R5
> > if there are no token ring interfaces present.
> >
> > The only thing with your configuration that I
> think might cause a problem
> > is that if R4 and R5 needed to initiate sessions,
> they have no remote-peer
> > statements to do so (that is, of course, assuming
> they would be initiating
> > sessions). The only way your configs would work is
> only if hosts on the
> > token ring segment of R2 were to initiate the
> sessions (because R2 has the
> > explicit remote peer statements).
> >
> > Hope this helps...
> >
> > Cory
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > BUI, TIN T (SBCSI)
> > Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 10:22 PM
> > To: 'Ccielab (E-mail)'
> > Subject: Another dlsw question
> >
> > I posted this a couple of weeks ago and everyone
> seem to think my
> > configuration would work, but after reading some
> more, I think I'm missing
> > the statement "source-bridge ring-group 200" on
> R5. Reason is that from R5
> > to R2 we are going from ethernet to Token ring.
> Did everyone miss this or
> > would this configuration actually work? I don't
> have the correct equipment
> > to test out this configuration so that's why I'm
> asking. thanks
> >
> > Scenario: Configure R2, R4, and R5 for DLSW.
> Configure filter so that the
> > only protocol that is transported via dlsw is
> netbios and apply this filter
> > to R2 remote peer statements.
> >
> > R5:
> > dlsw local-peer peer-id 150.100.5.5 group 100
> promiscuous
> > dlsw bridge-group 1
> > int loopback 0
> > ip address 150.100.5.5 255.255.255.0
> > int e0
> > bridge-group 1
> > bridge 1 protocol ieee
> >
> > R2:
> > source-bridge ring-group 200
> > dlsw local-peer peer-id 150.100.2.2 group 100
> border
> > dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 150.100.4.4
> lsap-output-list 200
> > dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 150.100.5.5
> lsap-output-list 200
> > int loopback 0
> > ip address 150.100.2.2 255.255.255.0
> > int token0
> > source-bridge 25 1 200
> > source-bridge spanning
> > access-list 200 permit 0xF0F0 0x0101
> >
> > R4:
> > source-bridge ring-group 400
> > dlsw local-peer peer-id 150.100.4.4 group 100
> promiscuous
> > int loopback 0
> > ip address 150.100.4.4 255.255.255.0
> > int token0
> > source-bridge 26 1 400
> > source-bridge spanning
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:39 GMT-3