From: fwells12 (fwells12@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Nov 01 2001 - 21:02:21 GMT-3
Good point.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Brown" <Jim.Brown@CaseLogic.com>
To: "'Geir Jensen'" <geir@hfk.vgs.no>; "fwells12" <fwells12@hotmail.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 1:45 PM
Subject: RE: DLSW peer question
> In a production environment would it not make more sense to tie the local
> peer to a single physical interface if there is only one interface
> participating in DLSW?
>
> If it is tied to the physical interface, when it goes down then so does
the
> DLSW connection.
>
> If it is tied to a loopback and the physical interface is down, DLSW
traffic
> will travel to the remote end only to be dropped.
>
> It seems to me tying it to the physical interface would conserve bandwidth
> during interface failures.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geir Jensen [mailto:geir@hfk.vgs.no]
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:16 PM
> To: fwells12; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: DLSW peer question
>
>
> I always use the loopback, it's definately more stable than the
> alternatives. Geir Jensen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fwells12
> Sent: Thu 11/1/2001 9:34 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc:
> Subject: DLSW peer question
>
>
>
> OK, you have a router which has more than one LAN interface it needs
> DLSW
> traffic forwarded from, let's say e0 and t0. It also has a loopback
> int with
> ip ad 172.16.10.1/24. The ip's of the e0 and t0 interfaces are
> 172.16.20.1/24
> and 172.16.30.1/24 respectively. What ip address is the best
> practice to use
> for your dlsw local-peer peer-id statement?
>
> Cheers
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 06:45:01 GMT-3