IPX with multiple encaps. Subints or Secondary?

From: Flack, Les (les_flack@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Feb 23 2001 - 09:15:33 GMT-3

• Next message: Scott Morris: "RE: Off Topic - anyone else in this fix?"
• Previous message: Mark Beck: "RE: How to Test DLSw+"
• Next in thread: Frank Jimenez: "Re: IPX with multiple encaps. Subints or Secondary?"
• Maybe reply: Frank Jimenez: "Re: IPX with multiple encaps. Subints or Secondary?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

   
Can anyone confirm whether an Ethernet configured with two IPX address's =
(IPX RIP) on different encapsulations (ie a secondary address) behaves =
as two interfaces or is there a split-horizon issue here?
cciebootcamp 17 has a scenario where the solution shows the two IPX nets =
on separate subints but I tried both ipx nets on the same physical and =
it seems to work also.=20

With different encapsulations on subints.
r6(e0)------------(e0.1)R14(e0.2)--------------(e0)r4
  Novell-Ether ARPA
    1406 1404
or

With different encapsulation on secondary address.
 r6 r14 r4
(e0)-----------------(e0)---------------(e0)
  Novell-Ether ARPA
    1406 1404

Debug ipx routing acivity on r14 shows the same rip updates on either =
approach.

thanks in advance

regards,

Les

• Next message: Scott Morris: "RE: Off Topic - anyone else in this fix?"
• Previous message: Mark Beck: "RE: How to Test DLSw+"
• Next in thread: Frank Jimenez: "Re: IPX with multiple encaps. Subints or Secondary?"
• Maybe reply: Frank Jimenez: "Re: IPX with multiple encaps. Subints or Secondary?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:28:58 GMT-3