From: Johnny Dedon (johnny.dedon@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu May 10 2001 - 13:13:47 GMT-3
Tariq,
I would have to say no to your question about R1 having connectivity to R3
with only a dlsw + connection between R1 and R2. If R2 and R3 were in the
same bridge group and routing was not being used on R3 then I would say
that what you have should work.
Anyone else have any ideas?
Johnny Dedon
Senior Staff Consultant
Exodus Professional Services
johnny.dedon@exodus.net
www.exodus.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tariq Sharif" <tariq_sharif@btinternet.com>
To: "Ccielab@Groupstudy. Com" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:09 AM
Subject: DLSw+ "Inverse ARP"??
> Practice lab asks for providing full DLSw+ connectivity between R2 &
R3.And
> between the ring & Lan1 & 2 but by only using ONE peer statement at R1
> can't use border peers or promis)
>
> ring--R1---WAN---R2--WAN--R3
> | |
> | LAN1 LAN2
>
> Is there anything like Inverse ARP in DLSw+? So if I do a single DLS
> remote peer statement on R1 with R2 as remote peer, will this provide R3
> connectivity between R1 & R3? I've got it setup like this but don't know
> how to see if it works (don't have PCs etc)
>
> Many thanks & regards.
>
> Tariq Sharif
> **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 - 10:30:38 GMT-3