From: simplimarvelous (simplimarvelous@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Apr 19 2001 - 00:37:09 GMT-3
Is it possible to do it like this?
Put R2 and R3 in a cluster leave R1 on its own. It would seem that R1 would
only need to make a connection to the clusters ring, and would not need to
have a connection to both routers in the cluster. I would think that the
cluster internal routers would communicate fine, and any traffic from r3 to
r1 would only have to make one connection via the clusters virtual ring.
sounds good in theory...
Gerald
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel GASPARD" <mgaspard@cisco.com>
To: "Huang HaiBo" <huanghb@mdcl.com.cn>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 8:07 AM
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
connection.
> > 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
connection.
> >
> > 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:50 GMT-3