From: Peter Rybaczyk (psrsam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Aug 16 2001 - 18:44:33 GMT-3
If you define all of the spoke routers as promiscuous without any remote peer
statements, would that work if you had two groups, one group on each side of a
cloud and the all of the spokes were configured like this? My understanding is
that without a remote peer statement, the local peer can only accept a session
but not initiate one. I suppose it could work if the ability to initiate
sessions was limited only to one side, which likely becomes a design issue.
Clarification would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Peter
Jim Brown wrote:
> The spoke routers could be defined as promiscuous eliminating the required
> peering statements on the spokes.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory W. Posey Jr. [mailto:gposey@conects.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:32 PM
> To: Nathan Cruz; CCIElab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: DLSW Peer Groups
>
> I think that as long as all of the routers have remote peering statements to
> the peer group border, then any to any will work (with remote peer
> statements on the border router to all of the "clients" and local peer
> promiscuous on all of the "clients"). So the peer group border router can
> act as a mediator to set up peering between two clients (then it drops out
> of the process once the two clients are peered). So the similarities to BGP
> Route Reflectors is sure there.
>
> If this isn't an accurate description, then somebody please rescue us all
> from the shackles of ignorance :-)
>
> Thank you,
> Greg Posey Jr.
> CONECTS Network Analyst
> CCIE #7981
> CCDA/CCNP - Security Specialist
> Cisco Voice Access Specialist
> 313-875-2088 ext. 347
> www.conects.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Nathan Cruz
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 4:00 PM
> To: CCIElab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: DLSW Peer Groups
>
> Hi, I'm working on peer groups in DLSW and I'm trying to get a concept down.
>
> Question if I had 3 or four routers could I make them into ONE (1) peer
> group
> and have any to any connectivity?
>
> I guess it boils down to do the routers within a peer group have dynamic
> access to all the other routers in the same peer group or is this "any to
> any"
> connectivity only to routers in other peer groups?
>
> I'm imagining this to be sort of like route-reflectors in BGP? But I'm
> not
> sure.
>
> Any help, thoughts, or comments appreciated.
>
> Nathan
> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> **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 - 10:31:52 GMT-3