From: tom cheung (tkc9789@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Aug 19 2001 - 13:02:02 GMT-3
Daniel,
The original question was "How to configure MAC filter to allow address
starting with 4000.2200.xxxx." Yves' solution was: 4000.2200.0000 mask
ffff.ffff.0000. What you said is also correct that "f" are care bits and
"0" are don't care. So correct me if I'm wrong. The mask of ffff.ffff.0000
implies 4000.2200 must match and the rest is don't care. This yields a
result of permitted mac address range 4000.2200.0000 through 4000.2200.ffff.
Or 4000.2200.xxxx.
Regards,
Tom
>From: "Daniel C. Young" <danyoung99@mediaone.net>
>Reply-To: <young@pobox.com>
>To: "'tom cheung'" <tkc9789@hotmail.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: Explore Frame and DLSW+
>Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 08:50:46 -0700
>
>
>Tom,
>
>I stand corrected. Here is from the CCO:
>
>MAC address mask in hexadecimal h.h.h. The "f" value represents the "care"
>bit and the "0" value represents the "don't care" bit. The mask indicates
>which bits in the MAC address are relevant.
>
>Apologies,
>Daniel
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: tom cheung [mailto:tkc9789@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, 19 August 2001 7:02 AM
>To: Yves@Fauser.de; danyoung99@mediaone.net
>Cc: ccie_yong@hotmail.com
>Subject: Re: Explore Frame and DLSW+
>
>
>I believe Yves' mask on his icanreach statement is correct.
>
>
> >From: Yves Fauser <Yves@Fauser.de>
> >Reply-To: Yves Fauser <Yves@Fauser.de>
> >To: "Daniel C. Young" <danyoung99@mediaone.net>
> >CC: "'CCIE yong'" <ccie_yong@hotmail.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Re: Explore Frame and DLSW+
> >Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 09:56:13 +0200
> >
> >Hey Daniel,
> >sorry but my mask is right, remember it is read like a subnet mask, not
> >like a
> >wildcard mask !
> >
> >Paduh,
> >There is no mask in the <dlsw mac-address> command
> >
> >
> >Yves
> >
> >
> >
> >"Daniel C. Young" wrote:
> >
> > > This is one option, but 'dlsw mac-address' statement allows you only
>to
> > > define a single reachable mac address. If you want to specify a range
>of
> >mac
> > > addresses, then the other option is a better one. Yves was on the
>right
> > > track, but his mask was off.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > > CCIE yong
> > > Sent: Saturday, 18 August 2001 11:11 PM
> > > To: danyoung99@mediaone.net
> > > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: RE: Explore Frame and DLSW+
> > >
> > > Hi, I don't understand your hunt.
> > >
> > > what I'd do in the following question is I'll do a :
> > >
> > > dlsw mac-address xxxxxxxxxxxx ip remote peer's ip to accomplish that,
> >will
> > > this statement put the mac-address in the local cache ?
> > >
> > > or there is other way to do it ?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Yonber
> > >
> > > >From: "Daniel C. Young" <danyoung99@mediaone.net>
> > > >Reply-To: "Daniel C. Young" <danyoung99@mediaone.net>
> > > >To: "'Padhu \(LFG\)'" <padhu@steinroe.com>, "'Yves Fauser '"
> > > ><Yves@Fauser.de>, "'Georges Lauture '" <glauture@hotmail.com>
> > > >CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > >Subject: RE: Explore Frame and DLSW+
> > > >Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:40:14 -0700
> > > >
> > > >Hey Padhu.
> > > >
> > > >George, here is a hint: if you don't want your local hosts to have to
> >send
> > > >explorers to reach the remote host, then your local peer must have
>that
> > > >mac-address in its local cache. What if the remote peer were to
> >advertise
> > > >this mac-address as part of its capabilities exchange?
> > > >
> > > >Daniel
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf
>Of
> > > >Padhu (LFG)
> > > >Sent: Saturday, 18 August 2001 3:50 PM
> > > >To: 'Yves Fauser '; 'Georges Lauture '
> > > >Cc: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com '
> > > >Subject: RE: Explore Frame and DLSW+
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you also not do a static mapping ?
> > > >dlsw mac-address xxxxxxxxxxxx ip remote peer's ip. I never tried
>using
> >a
> > > >wild card mask though with this command.
> > > >
> > > >No failover if remote peer fails though.
> > > >
> > > >Cheers,Padhu
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Yves Fauser
> > > >To: Georges Lauture
> > > >Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > >Sent: 8/18/01 10:25 AM
> > > >Subject: Re: Explore Frame and DLSW+
> > > >
> > > >George,
> > > >
> > > >Your question is kind of confusing regarding the wording. If you say
> >"it
> > > >does
> > > >not need to send an explorer Frame", the only thing that I would
> >suggest
> > > >is
> > > >to put a static rif entry into your router. This would enable a users
> > > >station
> > > >on the ring to reach a host on a remote ring using an local explorer.
> > > >But
> > > >there is no mask in this command.
> > > >If the question was "it does not need to send a canureach explorer
>(via
> > > >dlsw)", than the answer is to type int <dlsw icanreach mac-address
> > > >4000.2200.0000 mask ffff.ffff.0000> on the remote peer, so that your
> > > >peer
> > > >knows that it can reach the address 4000.2200.xxxx via the remote
>peer
> > > >after
> > > >cap_exchange. But if the users station want's to reach any other
> >station
> > > >or
> > > >host outside of the local ring, it has to send out an single or all
> > > >routes
> > > >explorer frame.
> > > >
> > > >Yves
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Georges Lauture wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How to configure so that a user connected to a Ring needs to
> > > >communicate
> > > > > with a MAC address starting with 4000.2200.xxxx, It does not need
>to
> > > >send
> > > > > an explorer frame?
> > > >**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:31:53 GMT-3