From: Michael Davis (miked@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed May 23 2001 - 11:37:10 GMT-3
Theo,
No need to be sorry - it was a great question! That's what this list is
for. Got us all thinking!
Mike
#7303
----- Original Message -----
From: "Theodore TZEVELEKIS" <theodore_tzevelekis@yahoo.com>
To: "Michael Davis" <miked@netrus.net>; "Roman Rodichev"
<rodic000@hotmail.com>; <padhu@steinroe.com>; <jmastrap@cisco.com>;
<rchoon@att.com>; <ramil@SkiBuff.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Cc: <gorrior@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: 2 dlsw peers. On both you have Ethernet and TR
> 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