From: D. J. Jones (meganac@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2001 - 23:22:59 GMT-3
I think you may be correct. Ports 2065/2067 are for RSRB..dj
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kaberna" <jkaberna@netcginc.com>
To: "Ron" <ron@xtranetsolutions.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: tcp ports for dlsw+ traffic
> If I'm not mistaken 1981-1983 is used for DLSW ports if you are using
> priority. Can anyone verify that?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron <ron@xtranetsolutions.com>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 5:43 PM
> Subject: tcp ports for dlsw+ traffic
>
>
> > Hi, all,
> >
> > Besides tcp 2065 and tcp 2067, Is there any more ports for dlsw+ =
> > traffic? I checked Cisco CD and got no answer. Before I put the =
> > access-list 120 in the R2. The dlsw+ is working. If I put the =
> > access-list, the dlsw+ peers are lost.
> >
> > Here is a scenario: R1 (fa0/0) .........(e0, access-list 120 in ) R2 =
> > (s1)...........(s1)R3
> > Required: only permit dlsw+ traffic pass through R2
> > My configs:
> > *************
> > R1:
> > dlsw local-peer peer-id 138.10.4.1
> > dlsw remote-peer 0 fst 138.10.25.3=20
> > dlsw bridge-group 1
> >
> > R2:
> > interface e0
> > ip access-group 120 in
> > access-list 120 permit tcp any any eq 2065
> > access-list 120 permit tcp any any eq 2067
> >
> > R3:
> > dlsw local-peer peer-id 138.10.25.3
> > dlsw remote-peer 0 fst 138.10.4.1
> > dlsw bridge-group 1
> >
> >
> > r1#sh dlsw peers
> >
> > Peers: state pkts_rx pkts_tx type drops ckts TCP
=
> > uptime
> >
> > FST 138.10.25.3 DISCONN 0 0 conf 0 - -
=
> > -
> >
> > Expected: 0 Next Send: 0 Seq errors: 0
> > Total number of connected peers: 0
> > Total number of connections: 0
> >
> > ********************
> >
> > Thanks for any help,
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:01 GMT-3