From: Kyle Galusha (kgalusha@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Sep 09 2001 - 12:15:23 GMT-3
Brian and Ravi,
If I recall correctly (at least in 12.0) port list are for serial and t/r
interface only, right. I thought I read on this list a while back (and it
seems list I've monitored this list forever) that newer code changed that
but when I check 12.0 it still states the following:
"The port list command provides a single command to specify both serial and
Token Ring interfaces" It can be found at
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/12cgcr/ibm_c/bc
prt2/bcdlsw.htm#xtocid278464.
So Brian you may be using a later code than Ravi.
Personally I always use ring-lists and bgroup lists with DLSW+\
Best regards,
Kyle
At 12:43 AM 9/9/2001 +0000, Brian Lodwick wrote:
>Just to get the basics out of the way could you let me know if the
>following is configured correctly.
>
>Their is one command I didn't include that is required to set up SRB that
>I assumed you knew about and already configured below:
>
>R2(config)# bridge 1 protocol ieee
>
>Also just to verify; you're DLSW peers are showing as CONNECT right? You
>can check this by doing the show dlsw peers command. It should look
>something like this:
>
>
>R2#show dlsw peer
>Peers: state pkts_rx pkts_tx type drops ckts TCP uptime
>
>TCP 10.0.0.2 CONNECT 2 2 conf 0 0 0 00:00:20
>
> Expected: 0 Next Send: 0 Seq errors: 0
>Total number of connected peers: 1
>Total number of connections: 1
>
>The addresses I used for the remote peer and the local peer were examples.
>You need to make sure that the configuration of R2 has R3's address for
>the remote peer and R2's address for the local peer. How is it that you
>are checking to verify that the port-list isn't working?
>
>Jeff Lodwick CCNP ---> Brian's brother
>
>>From: "Ravi" <s_ravichandran@hotmail.com>
>>To: "Brian Lodwick" <xpranax@hotmail.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>Subject: Re: DLSW question
>>Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 19:44:02 -0400
>>
>>Thanks Brian,
>>
>>I tried the following but it does not work
>>R2(config)# int e0
>>R2(config-if)# bridge-group 2
>>R2(config-if)# int e1
>>R2(config-if)# bridge-group 2
>>R2(config-if)#exit
>>R2(config)# dlsw bridge-group 2
>>R3(config)# dlsw port-list 5 ethernet 0
>>R2(config)# dlsw local-peer peer-id 10.0.0.1
>>R2(config)# dlsw remote-peer 5 tcp peer-id 10.0.0.2
>>
>>Regards,
>>Ravi
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Brian Lodwick <xpranax@hotmail.com>
>>To: <s_ravichandran@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 4:34 PM
>>Subject: Re: DLSW question
>>
>>
>> > Ravi,
>> > With what you want to do you can not use a bgroup-list because the way the
>> > bgroup-list works is by controlling which bridge groups the remote-peer
>>has
>> > access to and you can't specify different bridge groups on each ethernet
>> > interface of R2 because then host A and host B couldn't communicate
>>(unless
>> > you had CRB on the router to route between bridge groups which would be
>>more
>> > configuration and more processor utilization then what is needed for what
>> > you want) which was one of your requirements for your setup. You can only
>> > use a port-list and if I'm not mistaken if you don't have an ip address on
>> > the ethernet interfaces and you are purely bridging on those interfaces
>>you
>> > have to create a BVI using CRB to concurrently bridge and route on the
>> > router or routers that don't have an address on the ethernet interfaces.
>> > I've shown what the configs should look like below for port-list and
>> > bgroup-list.
>> >
>> >
>> > The port-list configuration is a little more granular and is not
>>associated
>> > with source-route or transparent bridging like a ring-list or a
>>bgroup-list.
>> > This is a way to control which interfaces a remote-peer connection has
>> > access to. In this config, connections from remote-peer 10.0.0.2 (address
>>of
>> > your R3 router) will only be able to access resources off of Ethernet 0.
>> > Notice in the remote-peer command the 5 associates port-list 5 to
>> > remote-peer 10.0.0.2.
>> >
>> > R2(config)# int e0
>> > R2(config-if)# bridge-group 2
>> > R2(config-if)# int e1
>> > R2(config-if)# bridge-group 2
>> > R2(config-if)#exit
>> > R2(config)# dlsw bridge-group 2
>> > R3(config)# dlsw port-list 5 ethernet 0
>> > R2(config)# dlsw local-peer peer-id 10.0.0.1
>> > R2(config)# dlsw remote-peer 5 tcp peer-id 10.0.0.2
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > As I stated in the first paragraph the bgroup-list won't work for what you
>> > want but I thought I'd add the config for you anyway just to give you an
>> > idea of how it looks. The config below will make the connections from
>> > remote-peer only able to reach bridge-group 2 (ethernet 0). Notice in the
>> > remote-peer command the 7 associates bgroup-list 7 to remote-peer
>> > 10.0.0.2.
>> >
>> > R1(config)# int e0
>> > R1(config-if)# bridge-group 2
>> > R1(config-if)# int e1
>> > R1(config-if)# bridge-group 1
>> > R1(config-if)#exit
>> > R1(config)# dlsw bridge-group 2
>> > R1(config)# dlsw bridge-group 1
>> > R1(config)# dlsw bgroup-list 7 bgroups 2
>> > R1(config)# dlsw local-peer peer-id 10.0.0.1
>> > R1(config)# dlsw remote-peer 7 tcp peer-id 10.0.0.2
>> >
>> > Hope this helps,
>> > Jeff Lodwick
>> >
>> > >From: "Ravi" <s_ravichandran@hotmail.com>
>> > >Reply-To: "Ravi" <s_ravichandran@hotmail.com>
>> > >To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>> > >Subject: DLSW question
>> > >Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:45:00 -0400
>> > >
>> > >Hi,
>> > >
>> > >I am working on a dlsw problem, need help from the group.
>> > >
>> > >R2 and R3 are dlsw peers. host C is on R3's Ethernet interface. Host A is
>> > >on
>> > >R2's E0 and host B is on R2's E1 interfaces.
>> > >
>> > >I want host A and B to be bridged on R2. But only host A should be seen
>>on
>> > >R3 thru dlsw. I do not want to use any netbios or mac filtering
>>techniques.
>> > >I was trying to use port-list and bgroup-list to fix this problem. But I
>> > >could not not make it working.
>> > >
>> > >Regards,
>> > >Ravi
>> > >**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:15 GMT-3