From: CCIE Wannabe (ramil@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed May 23 2001 - 10:38:26 GMT-3
which one doesn't work. Jorge's or Padhu's?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Devender Singh" <devender.singh@cmc.cwo.net.au>
To: "Devender Singh" <devender.singh@cmc.cwo.net.au>; "Jorge Mastrapa"
<jmastrap@cisco.com>; "Michael Davis" <miked@netrus.net>; "Choon, Raymond
()" <rchoon@att.com>; "'Padhu (LFG)'" <padhu@steinroe.com>; "'RAMIL'"
<ramil@SkiBuff.com>; "Theodore TZEVELEKIS" <theodore_tzevelekis@yahoo.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Cc: <gorrior@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: 2 dlsw peers. On both you have Ethernet and TR
> Guess what, it does not work. May be it is just not possible.
>
> Devender Singh
> BE(Hons), CCNP
> IP Solution Specialist
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Devender Singh [mailto:devender.singh@cmc.cwo.net.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2001 10:56
> To: Jorge Mastrapa; Michael Davis; Choon, Raymond (); 'Padhu (LFG)';
> 'RAMIL'; Theodore TZEVELEKIS; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc: gorrior@yahoo.com
> Subject: RE: 2 dlsw peers. On both you have Ethernet and TR
>
>
> I will third Padhu's solution. I think we can also use port-list instead.
I
> think port-list can be a choice if we have to pick ports within a
> bridge-group. Port-list can be used for token ring as ring list.
>
> Devender Singh
> BE(Hons), CCNP
> IP Solution Specialist
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jorge Mastrapa [mailto:jmastrap@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2001 6:28
> To: Michael Davis; Choon, Raymond (); 'Padhu (LFG)'; 'RAMIL'; Theodore
> TZEVELEKIS; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc: gorrior@yahoo.com
> Subject: RE: 2 dlsw peers. On both you have Ethernet and TR
>
>
> Ring lists with multiple remote peers
>
> ej.. ( by mem so look the commands just to be sure but .. )
>
> R1 ----------------- R2
> E0 1.1.1.1 E0 2.2.2.2
> T0 3.3.3.3 T0 4.4.4.4
> L0 5.5.5.5 L0 6.6.6.6
>
> R1
> dlsw local-peer peer-id 5.5.5.5
> dlsw remote-peer 1 tcp 2.2.2.2
> dlsw remote-peer 2 tcp 4.4.4.4
> dlsw bridge-group 1
> source-bridge ring-group 100
> dlsw ring-list 1 ring 1
> dlsw ring-list 2 ring 100
>
> e 0
> ip add 1.1.1.1
> bridge-group 1
>
> t0
> ip add 3.3.3.3
> source-bridge 10 1 100
>
> The other router same config ( just change the numbers :-)
>
>
> my $.02
>
> J.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > Michael Davis
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 1:07 PM
> > To: Choon, Raymond (); 'Padhu (LFG)'; 'RAMIL'; Theodore TZEVELEKIS;
> > ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Cc: gorrior@yahoo.com
> > Subject: Re: 2 dlsw peers. On both you have Ethernet and TR
> >
> >
> > I think this is where you would use port-lists, no?
> >
> > Mike
> > #7303
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Choon, Raymond ()" <rchoon@att.com>
> > To: "'Padhu (LFG)'" <padhu@steinroe.com>; "'RAMIL'" <ramil@SkiBuff.com>;
> > "Theodore TZEVELEKIS" <theodore_tzevelekis@yahoo.com>;
> > <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Cc: <gorrior@yahoo.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 12:33 PM
> > Subject: RE: 2 dlsw peers. On both you have Ethernet and TR
> >
> >
> > > Padhu,
> > >
> > > I second your solution. This is what I would do.
> > >
> > > Raymond
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Padhu (LFG) [mailto:padhu@steinroe.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 11:41 AM
> > > To: 'RAMIL'; Theodore TZEVELEKIS; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Cc: gorrior@yahoo.com
> > > Subject: RE: 2 dlsw peers. On both you have Ethernet and TR
> > >
> > >
> > > Just my 2c
> > >
> > > R1--------------R2
> > > ETh ETH
> > > TR TR
> > > On R1 and R2 , assign ip to ETH and TR interfaces and complete the
dlsw
> > > configurations
> > > create a bridge group for ETh and Ring list for TR on both R1 and R2
> > > respectively.
> > > Create the remote peers on R1 with bgroup as the local target
> > pointing to
> > > R2's ethernet as peer
> > > repeat this 3 more times for the 3 other interfaces.
> > >
> > > Somone correct me if this wouldn't work.
> > >
> > > Cheers,Padhu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: RAMIL [mailto:ramil@SkiBuff.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:35 AM
> > > To: Theodore TZEVELEKIS; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Cc: gorrior@yahoo.com
> > > Subject: Re:
> > >
> > >
> > > border peers?
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Theodore TZEVELEKIS" <theodore_tzevelekis@yahoo.com>
> > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Cc: <gorrior@yahoo.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 11:28 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > > Suppose you have 2 dlsw peers. On both you have
> > > > Ethernet and TR.
> > > >
> > > > However, you only want the 2 ethernets to communicate
> > > > with eachother and the two TR with eachother.
> > > >
> > > > In other words, no TR traffic should be seen on either
> > > > ethernet and no ethernet traffic should be seen on
> > > > either TR.
> > > >
> > > > Any ideas about how to do this?
> > > >
> > > > Please reply to all.
> > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:30:49 GMT-3