From: Ravi (s_ravichandran@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Sep 14 2001 - 10:50:46 GMT-3
Hi,
I am sure it is not required, Hutnik book has good informations and it also
has some errors like the one you have mentioned below.
Regards,
Ravi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raji Mohan" <raji@guddi.exodus.net>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 9:27 AM
Subject: DLSw+ question
> I had a question reg. DLSw between TR and Eth intf with two routers
> specifically the example given in Hutnik and Satterlee (Pg 413-CCIE Lab
> Practice Kit) . The example shows R1 with an Eth intf and R3 with a Token
> Ring intf connected to each other thru Serial. To enable DLSw between the
> two routers :
> R1 :
> dlsw local-peer peer-id <local ipaddress> promiscuous
> dlsw bridge-group 2
> source-bridge ring-group 169 ---------------> is this necessary?
>
> int e0/0
> ip address <ip_address>
> bridge-group 2
> !
> bridge 2 protocol ieee
>
>
> R3 :
> source-bridge ring-group 169
> dlsw local-peer peer-id <ip_address>
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp <ip_address>
> !
> int tokenRing1/0
> ip address <ip_addr>
> source-bridge 10 1 169
> source-bridge spanning
> !
>
>
> My question is 'is the source-bridge ring-group 169' statement required on
> R1 which is a pure Eth router?
>
> /raji
> **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 - 10:32:17 GMT-3