From: Larry Roberts (lroberts22@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Feb 06 2001 - 23:13:03 GMT-3
One thing to check would be the duplex settings on both of the routers and
on the 3920 switch. The default on the 3920 is auto. This means that it will
negoiate the duplex based on the routers connected to it. I have seen it
where the port to a 4000 will get set to full-duplex and the port to a 2500
will get set to half-duplex.A friend of mine also had this on his CCIE lab
and he wasted three hours trying to figure it out! This should not be an
issue now, (at least in San Jose) as all of the routers in the lab are
3600's. To check the duplex on the routers do a show interface token. It
will show half-duplex just below the ring-speed I believe. If it doesn't
show the duplex it is probably set to Full-duplex. You can also do a show
controllers token and check the ring-mode. I believe 0 is half-duplex and 8
is full-duplex. Or the other way around. :-) My main point here is make sure
they match on the routers and it is probably not a bad idea to just hard set
the 3920 to HDX. (half-duplex). Here is a link for information on
configuring the 3920.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat3920/ct3920ug/index.h
tm
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Roberts <lroberts22@uswest.com>
To: Robert DeVito <robertdevito@hotmail.com>; <abasinge@swbell.net>;
<jim.fitzpatrick@verizon.com>; <bhescock@cisco.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: token switch 3920 config problems
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert DeVito <robertdevito@hotmail.com>
> To: <abasinge@swbell.net>; <jim.fitzpatrick@verizon.com>;
> <bhescock@cisco.com>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 7:43 PM
> Subject: RE: token switch 3920 config problems
>
>
> > IBM is my weak spot, but if you where using the same ring number and you
> are
> > under the same Brf, why would you need to use multiring? I thought
> multiring
> > will enable the router to look at the RIF information to route between
> > different ring numbers or bridge numbers?
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >
> >
> > ----Original Message Follows----
> > From: Alan Basinger <abasinge@swbell.net>
> > Reply-To: Alan Basinger <abasinge@swbell.net>
> > To: jim.fitzpatrick@verizon.com, bhescock@cisco.com
> > CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: token switch 3920 config problems
> > Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 13:08:18 -0600
> >
> > Jim,
> > You are correct. We were taught this in the ECP1 class.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > jim.fitzpatrick@verizon.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 12:08 PM
> > To: bhescock@cisco.com
> > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: re: token switch 3920 config problems
> >
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > I seem to remember from the BRS class that we has a similar problem, the
> > solution was to make sure that you either set the 3920 for source-route
> > transparent or put 'multiring all' on the router interfaces.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jim
> > ---------- Original Text ----------
> >
> > From: "Brian Hescock" <bhescock@cisco.com>, on 2/6/2001 11:38 AM:
> >
> > Having problems getting two routers to talk using a 3920 switch in the
> > middle. Very basic config but it isn't working:
> >
> > 3920 config
> >
> > brf 100
> > |
> > crf 10 (parent is brf 100)
> > | |
> > port port (ports linked to crf 10)
> > 3 4
> > | |
> > R1 R2
> >
> > So ports 3 and 4 on the switch are both linked to crf 10, which has a
> > parent of brf 100. R1 has an ip address of 10.1.1.1 and R2 and ip
> > address of 10.1.1.2, ring speed 16 (that's all). Both are up/up but I'm
> > getting encap failed when trying to ping. I wouldn't think I need any
> > bridging commands at all on R1 and R2, it should be just like plugging
> > into a MAU.
> >
> > The f'n search engine for the archives isn't working at groupstudy.com
> > again, 2nd day in a row (was hoping to find the answer there). Any
> > ideas why it wouldn't be working?
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:28:39 GMT-3