From: Diehm, Brian (Brian.Diehm@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Oct 14 2001 - 23:26:00 GMT-3
Do I need remote-peer statement even tough the routers are in
promiscuous mode. Shouldn't that be enough?
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Hescock [mailto:bhescock@cisco.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 6:20 PM
To: Diehm, Brian
Cc: Ccielab (E-mail)
Subject: Re: DLSW groups vs groups border
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