From: Brian Hescock (bhescock@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Oct 14 2001 - 20:20:06 GMT-3
Correct, you don't want to have remote peer statements on R2 and R3
pointing to each other, only point them to R1. It looks like your
config doesn't have a remote-peer statement for R1. The following doc
has sample configs:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/697/config_dlsw_peers.html
Brian
Diehm, Brian wrote:
>Am I correct in my thinking about DLSW peer groups. The way I
>understand it is spokes only have to be set to promiscuous and the hub
>has the remote peer statement.
>Do I need to have a remote peer statement on R2 to R3 to get this to
>work correctly? I know the point of this is to break of the full mesh
>so to speak. But is that only true between border peers and not with in
>the groups themselves?
>
>Example
>
> Border
> R1
> / \
> / \
> R2 R3
>
>hostname r1
>!
>!
>dlsw local-peer peer-id 100.0.0.1 group 1 border
>dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 100.0.0.2
>dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 100.0.0.3
>!
>interface Loopback0
> ip address 100.0.0.1 255.255.255.255
>
>
>
>hostname r2
>!
>dlsw local-peer peer-id 100.0.0.2 group 1 promiscuous
>!
>interface Loopback0
> ip address 100.0.0.2 255.255.255.255
>
>
>
>hostname r3
>!
>dlsw local-peer peer-id 100.0.0.3 group 1 promiscuous
>!
>interface Loopback0
> ip address 100.0.0.3 255.255.255.255
>
>Thanks,
>
>Brian D
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 22:33:18 GMT-3