From: Nathan Cruz (cciesoon@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Aug 16 2001 - 19:24:58 GMT-3
computer-------RA--------RB-------RC------computer
Ok, I got a chance to do some testing in my lab and here is what I found.
First I took three routers and made two peer groups. RA Group 1 and RB/RC in
Group 2. Then I started a netbios sesion between the two computers. This
created two dlsw peer connections on RC one between RB--RC and one between
RC--RA.
I then repeated the excercise with all routers in group 1 with RB as the
border router. I started a netbios session between the two computers again,
but this time to my suprise there was still only one dlsw connection on RC
and that was the original RC--RB.
Hope everyone was able to follow this. Any comments?
Nathan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Cruz" <cciesoon@home.com>
To: <perkinsr@WellsFargo.COM>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: DLSW Peer Groups
> Great, thanks everyone this is what I was looking for.
>
> Nathan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <perkinsr@WellsFargo.COM>
> To: <CCIElab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:59 PM
> Subject: RE: DLSW Peer Groups
>
>
> > There is also value in setting up one border router and group. In this
> > scenario you are simply alleviating the need to have multiple peer
> > statements for all other routers and also keeping the SSP traffic
between
> > peers down. The hub or border router keeps track of who can get to what
> and
> > redirects other routers making requests. The border router needs no
> remote
> > peer statements and the spoke routers only have to be configured to peer
> > with that border router.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Rybaczyk [mailto:psrsam@globalins.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:02 PM
> > To: Nathan Cruz
> > Cc: CCIElab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: DLSW Peer Groups
> >
> >
> > Nathan,
> > I am assuming that you are talking about the DLSW border peers and
border
> > peer
> > groups. Here are my thoughts beginning with the fundumentals of DLSW:
> > 1. You need at least two DLSW peers to make DLSW work for non-routable
> > traffic
> > across an IP backbone.
> > 2. If on each side of the backbone you have X number of routers (instead
> of
> > just
> > one) and you need full DLSW connectivity between each router on one side
> > with
> > every router on the other side, then you start running into the problem
of
> > too
> > many connections across the cloud, i.e., the any-to-any issue.
> > 3. However, if on each side of the cloud, one out of X routers (say
router
> > Y) is
> > chosen as the border peer, and all of the others on each side configure
Y
> as
> > its
> > remote peer, and Y from one side peers with Y from the other side, then
> > you've
> > accomplished the objective of reducing the number of connections across
> the
> > cloud.
> >
> > 4. The connections on each side of the cloud between Y and the rest
become
> > dynamic
> > (pod = peer on demand, when you view them with show dlsw peers)
> > 5. So to relate this to route reflectors, there are similarities, but
> > differences
> > as well. The biggest difference that I see is that you can have a single
> > route
> > reflector in a transit AS, but you need to have at least two DLSW border
> > peers,
> > one on each side of the cloud.
> >
> > If anyone sees any flaws here, please correct. With 10 days to go before
> 1st
> > attempt, I am working on refining many concepts and would not want to
> > mislead
> > anyone.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > Nathan Cruz wrote:
> >
> > > 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
**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