From: Brian Hescock (bhescock@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Feb 01 2001 - 12:54:53 GMT-3
Robert,
I was going through the archives earlier and apparently with
"icanreach" F's are "care" bits and 0's are "don't care" bits. One way to
remember this is if you configuring "icanreach" and don't specify the
mask, it gives it a mask of FFFF.FFFF.FFFF. There's no way that could be
"don't care" or else it would apply to everything. Just like a standard
access-list, if you don't specify the mask it automatically assumes
everything is a "care" bit. Just with access-lists a "care" bit is 0 and
in "icanreach" it's a "f". Personally I think this is complete
"bulls***" and should never have been designed that way.
Brian
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Robert DeVito wrote:
> I know this will probably start a big thread, but what is the correct
> answer?
>
> Thank you,
> Robert
>
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Les Hardin <hardinl@bah.com>
> Reply-To: Les Hardin <hardinl@bah.com>
> To: Devender Singh <devender.singh@cmc.cwo.net.au>,
> "Ccielab@Groupstudy. Com (E-mail)" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Subject: Re: more DLSW question
> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:33:18 -0500
>
> The last time we beat this up I think we came to the conclusion that the
> documentation is in error, and f is a care.
>
> Others may correct me if I'm wrong. (You can count on it! ;-) )
>
> Les
>
>
> At 12:57 PM 2/1/2001 +1100, Devender Singh wrote:
> >Question 1: Ring list. My book shows ring included in ring list command as
> >directly attached rings to the router. But can we include rings that are
> not
> >directly connected.
> >
> >Question 2: In "dlsw icanreach" command if we define a mac-address without
> >the mask, it defaults to ffff.ffff.ffff, which in common sense I would
> say
> >will point to only one host. But documentation says that f means don't
> care,
> >which would mean every possible host. This doen't make much sense to me.
> Can
> >someone enlighten me on this one.
> >
> >Question 3: When I change cost to a remote peer, how do I confirm the
> cost.
> >because " sh dlsw capa " keeps on showing default cost. Or m I missing
> >something here
> >
> >!
> >source-bridge ring-group 10
> >dlsw local-peer peer-id 4.4.4.4 passive
> >dlsw ring-list 1 rings 100
> >dlsw remote-peer 1 tcp 1.1.1.1 cost 2
> >dlsw remote-peer 1 tcp 3.3.3.3 cost 4
> >!
> >****************
> >r4#sh dlsw capa
> >DLSw: Capabilities for peer 1.1.1.1(2065)
> > vendor id (OUI) : '00C' (cisco)
> > version number : 2
> > release number : 0
> > border peer capable : no
> > peer cost : 3 <------- Cost shows up as
> >default value
> > UDP Unicast support : yes
> > Fast-switched HPR supp. : no
> > local-ack configured : yes
> > priority configured : no
> > cisco RSVP support : no
> > configured ip address : 1.1.1.1
> > peer type : conf
> > version string :
> >Cisco Inte
> >
> >DLSw: Capabilities for peer 3.3.3.3(2065)
> > vendor id (OUI) : '00C' (cisco)
> > V2 multicast capable : yes
> > peer cost : 3 <------- Cost shows up as
> >default value
> > biu-segment configured : no
> > UDP Unicast support : yes
> > Fast-switched HPR supp. : no
> > local-ack configured : yes
> > priority configured : no
> > cisco RSVP support : no
> > configured ip address : 3.3.3.3
> > peer type : conf
> > version string :
> >******************************************************
> >
> >Devender Singh
> >BE(Hons), CCNP
> >IP Solution Specialist
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:28:33 GMT-3