From: Jim Brown (Jim.Brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Nov 05 2001 - 15:59:49 GMT-3
I think you are missing the point. Ethernet interfaces connected by a DLSW
session over frame relay.
Now apply your logic.
-----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 - 06:45:04 GMT-3