From: Gregory W. Posey Jr. (gposey@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 01:28:26 GMT-3
The 2nd scenario (with all the routers in the same group) is the expected
behavior with peer groups. The border router acts as the go between when
the spokes/clients want to establish a peering session with each other.
Once that is set up, the border router drops out of the process and the
session exists between the two spokes (kind of like Call Manager and the IP
phones, which is why calls can stay active even if the Call Manager reboots,
but that's a whole other discussion - just noticing an analogy).
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 6:25 PM
To: Nathan Cruz
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: DLSW Peer Groups--- found a suprise
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
**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