From: Steven Weber (itweber@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Feb 12 2001 - 17:55:38 GMT-3
If the dlci's are coming up as inactive itprobably isn't due to the frame switc
h
because if it were the dlci's would come up as deleted. are you doing an encap
frame on the interfaces? are you sure that you are using the correct dlci's? tr
y
and switch the dlci's on either side of the pvc for one another maybe you
swapped the local dlci for the remote one
"Murphy, Brennan" wrote:
> I downloaded ccprep's white paper on building a home
> ccie lab because there is a section that
> shows you how to make a 4 port frame switch out of
> back to back 2501s...this is desirable if you
> dont have a 2520. In my case, I have alot of 2503s
> but no 2520.
>
> I am using the supplied configs below. I can't seem to
> get the frame switching to work across the tunnel.
> The frame switching between ser 0 and ser 1 on
> the first router works well.....but the switching
> that much use the tunnelling does not work.
>
> Has anyone else had any trouble getting these configs
> to work? I went ahead and appended them to this email.
>
> I'm basically trying to get everything working with
> point to point subinterfaces. no luck so far. The
> DLCIs come up INACTIVE.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions/help!
> -bm
>
> Cisco 2501 # 1
> !
> version 11.2
> service udp-small-servers
> service tcp-small-servers
> !
> hostname frame
> !
> !
> frame-relay switching
> !
> interface Tunnel0
> no ip address
> tunnel source Ethernet0
> tunnel destination 192.168.1.1
> !
> interface Ethernet0
> ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0
> !
> interface Serial0
> no ip address
> encapsulation frame-relay
> clockrate 1000000
> frame-relay lmi-type ansi
> frame-relay intf-type dce
> frame-relay route 112 interface Serial1 211
> frame-relay route 113 interface Tunnel0 311
> frame-relay route 114 interface Tunnel0 411
> !
> interface Serial1
> no ip address
> encapsulation frame-relay
> clockrate 1000000
> frame-relay lmi-type ansi
> frame-relay intf-type dce
> frame-relay route 211 interface Serial0 112
> !
> no ip classless
> !
> line con 0
> line aux 0
> line vty 0 4
> login
> !
> end
>
> Cisco 2501 # 2
> !
> version 11.2
> no service password-encryption
> no service udp-small-servers
> no service tcp-small-servers
> !
> hostname frame2
> !
> !
> frame-relay switching
> !
> interface Tunnel0
> no ip address
> tunnel source Ethernet0
> tunnel destination 192.168.1.2
> !
> interface Ethernet0
> ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
> !
> interface Serial0
> no ip address
> encapsulation frame-relay
> clockrate 1000000
> frame-relay lmi-type ansi
> frame-relay intf-type dce
> frame-relay route 311 interface Tunnel0 113
> !
> interface Serial1
> no ip address
> encapsulation frame-relay
> clockrate 1000000
> frame-relay lmi-type ansi
> frame-relay intf-type dce
> frame-relay route 411 interface Tunnel0 114
> !
> no ip classless
> !
> !
> line con 0
> line aux 0
> line vty 0 4
> login
> !
> end
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: achew@unmail.org [mailto:achew@unmail.org]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 3:02 PM
> To: Emanuele Solazzi; Peter Simmons; Kevin Baumgartner;
> dp595@optonline.net
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Any limitations with Catalyst 2901 as opposed to Cat5000?
>
> 2901/2926 yes - note older CatOS allows it only as pps while never versions
> allow it as a percentage as well. Guess this is one more of the reasons to
> avoid the switches based on the Catalyst 4000 CatOS. Oh on 5000s, some
> blades may not support some functions - I doubt if broadcast control is
> available on the older 10BT blades. Do a "show port capabilities" to figure
> out what's supported. 5213As for the 5000s can't do 802.1q, they only do
> ISL trunking... can't remember for sure but I think even the Sup II 10/100
> ports don't support 802.1q.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Emanuele Solazzi" <Emanuele2@italy2000.com>
> To: "Peter Simmons" <psimmons@netcomuk.co.uk>; "Kevin Baumgartner"
> <kbaumgar@cisco.com>; <dp595@optonline.net>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 1:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Any limitations with Catalyst 2901 as opposed to Cat5000?
>
> > does it support the command :
> > set port broadcast ?
> > Because my 2948G doesn't support it
> >
> > bye
> > Emanuele
> >
> > ----------------------------
> > Emanuele Solazzi
> > Cisco Certified System Instructor 21747
> > CCNP/CCDP 1.0 - 2.0 + Security + Voice
> > MCSE+I
> > emanuele@solazzi.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter Simmons" <psimmons@netcomuk.co.uk>
> > To: "Kevin Baumgartner" <kbaumgar@cisco.com>; <dp595@optonline.net>
> > Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Any limitations with Catalyst 2901 as opposed to Cat5000?
> >
> >
> > > Kevin,
> > >
> > > Sorry to disagree, but I've got a 2901 right here, and it's running the
> > same
> > > CatOS (XDI Interface) as any other Supervisor I module on a 5x00 series
> > > switch. It's upgradeable to 5.x CatOS, and supports all the same
> > > functionality as a 5x00 switch with a SUP I module. (I work with 5500
> and
> > > 6500 Kit every day).
> > >
> > > Maybe you're thinking of the 2900 XL series, which don't run CatOS
> > software.
> > >
> > > The only limtiation with a SUP I is lack of Etherchannel really,
> although
> > > things like FDDI/ATM LANE/RSM/VIP etc. do require the 5000/5500 series
> > > chassis, but these aren't Lab material AFAIK. (Although theroetically
> > > anything COULD be in the Lab by the time I get there!)
> > >
> > > If I had the money, I'd have a 5505, SUP III and various modules, but
> > > beggars can't be choosers, as they say! A 2901 is, in my humble opinion,
> a
> > > reasonable substitute given the current published requirements.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps,
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Pete S.
> > >
> > > June 21/22 Brussels
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kevin Baumgartner <kbaumgar@cisco.com>
> > > To: dp595@optonline.net <dp595@optonline.net>
> > > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Date: 11 February 2001 20:49
> > > Subject: Re: Any limitations with Catalyst 2901 as opposed to Cat5000?
> > >
> > >
> > > > They are not the same OS. The commands are quite different.
> > > >But the 2900 can do most of what you need I think. You can setup
> > > >VLANs, trunking, and VTP. And if you need to get experience with
> > > >the 5000 rent some time.
> > > >
> > > > Kevin
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> If I need a switch to study for CCIE are there any limitations of
> > buying
> > > =
> > > >> a Catalyst 2901 as opposed to a Catalyst 5000?
> > > >> They have the same OS and I won't need to upgrade.
> > > >> Any advice is appreciated. =20
> > > >> Thanks.
> > > >>
> > > >> Dan Pontrelli
> > > >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:28:46 GMT-3