From: Huang HaiBo (huanghb@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Apr 18 2001 - 23:34:58 GMT-3
How to creat the DLSW tunnel, could you give the command details.
Haibo
----- Original Message -----
From: Michel GASPARD <mgaspard@cisco.com>
To: Huang HaiBo <huanghb@mdcl.com.cn>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: DLSW questions, another idea
> Dear all,
>
> I though about another possibility, but I do not manage to make it work.
>
> I assume that to solve point 1), I used "promiscuous" in R2.
>
> My idea was: why not create a second DLSW tunnel, between R1 and R2
> (just a simple remote-peer statement is enough on R1, nothing on R2 nor
> R3).
>
> In that way, frames from R2 ro R1 are OK (simple DLSW).
>
> For frames from R3, I thought that they might be bridged R3-R2 with the
> first DLSW tunnel, and then bridged again if necessary into the second
> DLSW tunnel.
>
> But it seems it is not working that well (well, not at all..) in
> reality.
>
> Does anybody have experience of "double DLSW" bridging, i.e. frames that
> would arrive in a router DLSW, and would be bridged again though DLSW???
>
> Eventhough, this exercice was good to think "one step further"!!
>
> Regards,
>
> Michel
>
> Huang HaiBo wrote:
> >
> > Here is an interesting scenario I got from a practice lab.
> >
> > e0 s0 s0 s1 s0 e0
> > ---[r1]--------------[r2]-----------------[r3]-----
> > |
> > |e0
> > Task 1
> > configure such that host at [r2] e0 can access host at [r3] e0. The answer
> > is quite obvious.
> >
> > Task 2 (this is the tricky one)
> > configure [r1] such that host at [r2] and [r3] can access host at [r1].
> > Only ONE peer connection is allowed. Border peer command is not allowed.
> >
> > The initial thot I have is to configure [r2] as border peer and then
> > both r1 and r3 will peer with the border peer. But this will
> > violate the rules becos no border peer command should be in r1.
> >
> > Another thot that came across my mind is to configure
> > r1 in prosmicuous mode. Then r2 and r3 will peer with r1.
> > Doing this will violate the rule again becos there will be 2 peer connectio
n.
> > Note that the question states ONE peer connection NOT one peer command.
> > That is to say when u do a sh dlsw peer, there should be only ONE connectio
n.
> >
> > Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Huang
> > **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:50 GMT-3