From: Jason Sinclair (sinclairj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Nov 01 2001 - 22:56:36 GMT-3
Jim,
Guess it comes back to horses for courses again. Let's face it - in the lab
they will ask for wacky things so I guess anything goes if it answers the
question! In real life, however it may be totally different. Cisco always
says there is no one right way!
Cheers,
Jason Sinclair
Network Support Manager
POWERTEL Limited
Level 11, 55 Clarence Street, SYDNEY
Phone: 61-2-8264-3820
Fax: 61-2-9279-2604
Mobile: 0416 105 858
jasons@powertel.net.au
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Brown [mailto:Jim.Brown@CaseLogic.com]
Sent: Friday, 2 November 2001 10:49
To: 'Jason Sinclair'; 'fwells12'; Jim Brown;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: DLSW peer question
Imagine this.... you are peering between sites 'A' and 'B'
using loopbacks
across a WAN link. The Ethernet port at site 'A' fails. Site
'B' will
continue to send data across the WAN link. From the
perspective of site 'B'
everything is OK because the DLSW connection is maintained
between
loopbacks.
The DLSW connection is completely unaware of the fact that
the data has
nowhere to go once it arrives at site 'A'. I don't believe
DLSW monitors the
availably of interfaces attached to the ring group/bridge
group.
Using the same scenario except we peer between the Ethernet
ports. If one of
the Ethernet ports fail, the DLSW connection is torn down
conserving our
precious WAN bandwidth.
This is my reasoning why it is better to peer between
physical interfaces in
certain circumstances. All bets are off with two physical
interfaces on the
same router participating in DLSW. You could potentially
tear down the
connection when only one of the interfaces fails and leave
the other segment
on the same router out in the cold.
I'm only speaking of theory. I might be way off my rocker.
I've never used
DLSW in a production environment. So clarification of my
ramblings are
welcomed. If a DLSW guru wants to straighten me out I'm all
ears.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Sinclair [mailto:sinclairj@powertel.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 6:27 PM
To: 'fwells12'; Jim Brown; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: DLSW peer question
However,
Based on the logic of single interfaces, if the single
interface were to
fail (and they were directly connected!) the a side wouldn't
send anyway as
layer 2 would have failed?
Regards,
Jason Sinclair
Network Support Manager
POWERTEL Limited
Level 11, 55 Clarence Street, SYDNEY
Phone: 61-2-8264-3820
Fax: 61-2-9279-2604
Mobile: 0416 105 858
jasons@powertel.net.au
-----Original Message-----
From: fwells12
[mailto:fwells12@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 2 November 2001 10:02
To: Jim Brown; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: DLSW peer question
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