From: Theodore TZEVELEKIS (theodore_tzevelekis@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed May 23 2001 - 11:26:14 GMT-3
After a lot of research and asking around, I have concluded too that it is
not possible.
Sorry for wasting your time :-)
Thank you all for your answers.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Davis [mailto:miked@netrus.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 3:22 PM
To: Roman Rodichev; padhu@steinroe.com; jmastrap@cisco.com;
rchoon@att.com; ramil@SkiBuff.com; theodore_tzevelekis@yahoo.com;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Cc: gorrior@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: 2 dlsw peers. On both you have Ethernet and TR
I agree. Guess I needed to read the question a bit more slowly. (Good lesson
for the lab there :-) ) There is no way to separate the ethernet and TR
"vlans" on a single circuit between two routers. And as far as I know, no
way to set up more than one circuit between two routers. You need the third
router for the additional circuit.
Mike
#7303
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roman Rodichev" <rodic000@hotmail.com>
To: <padhu@steinroe.com>; <jmastrap@cisco.com>; <miked@netrus.net>;
<rchoon@att.com>; <ramil@SkiBuff.com>; <theodore_tzevelekis@yahoo.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Cc: <gorrior@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 8:34 PM
Subject: RE: 2 dlsw peers. On both you have Ethernet and TR
>
> This will not work. Don't waste your time trying it. Local peer-id HAS TO
> MATCH remote peer-id specified on the other router. Router will not except
> DLSW packets destined to an address that is not specified under "dlsw
> local-peer peer-id" statement
>
> It has to be A->B and B<-A, you can't do A->C and then B->A
>
> Theo, nice question :)
>
> You need to get third router to get this to work.
>
>
> >From: "Padhu (LFG)" <padhu@steinroe.com>
> >Reply-To: "Padhu (LFG)" <padhu@steinroe.com>
> >To: "'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
> >Subject: RE: 2 dlsw peers. On both you have Ethernet and TR
> >Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:31:49 -0500
> >
> >Theodore TZEVELEKIS :
> >
> >This is precisely it. The local peer on both sides is the logical
interface
> >which is loopback 0.
> >you control what remote peer can send traffic to the local restricted
ring
> >/
> >bgroup list. I am kinda rusty on dlsw right now....Will setup the lab and
> >send the configs hopefully with the snasw to simulate dlsw traffic.
> >
> >Cheers,Padhu
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jorge Mastrapa [mailto:jmastrap@cisco.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 3:28 PM
> >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 - 10:30:50 GMT-3