From: SWBell (lrlab@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Nov 17 2001 - 13:54:42 GMT-3
I don't think you would need the bcast keyword in a normal setup where all
peers are configured. The all route expolrer packets are layer 2 packets
that are re-rapped into another packet either another layer 2 with direct or
layer 3 with tcp. I dont know of any configurations where DLSW is going to
go out and hunt (bcast) for an unknown unconfigured dlsw peer to provide a
path to an unknown host. IOW I think that the all route exp is sent to all
known peers and no bcast would be needed.
I may be wrong.
Mitch
Original Message -----
From: "fwells12" <fwells12@hotmail.com>
To: "McCallum, Robert" <Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: DLSW Direct encapsulation heads up.
> I know the icanreach stuff will work because if the peers can estabish
> connections, (they can) the capabilities will be exchanged. I canreach is
> part of the capability exchange.
>
> I think you might be onto something regarding the all-rings explorers
> though. I guess I need to run some traffic over it to be sure.
>
> Better luck on your next crack at the lab.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "McCallum, Robert" <Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com>
> To: "'fwells12'" <fwells12@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:58 PM
> Subject: RE: DLSW Direct encapsulation heads up.
>
>
> > Interesting,
> >
> > obly thing that is niggling me is that DLSW is a kind of bridging, so I
> would suggest that there must be something that broadcasts, like an all
> rings explorer or something like that. Try running netbios across it or
> just do a dlsw ican reach on one router and see if it appears on the other
> end.
> >
> > BTW I just failed the damn lab yesterday - will go into more detail
later
> when I am less jaded.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fwells12 [mailto:fwells12@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: 16 November 2001 23:35
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: DLSW Direct encapsulation heads up.
> >
> >
> > I just connected two peers with DLSW Direct Encapsulation using the
> following
> > configs. Notice I did not use the 'broadcast' option on my frame-maps.
> The
> > sh dlsw peers still shows the peers as 'CONNECTED'. Now, I believe
DLSW
> does
> > not use broadcasts to communicate, so I don't think the broadcast
> parameter is
> > necessary. Thoughts?
> >
> > Note: I do not have any end points connected to verify this actually
> passes
> > traffic, but it looks promising.
> >
> > R4
> > dlsw local-peer peer-id 139.5.4.4
> > dlsw remote-peer 0 frame-relay interface Serial0 403 pass-thru
> > interface Serial0
> > frame-relay map dlsw 403
> > R3
> > dlsw local-peer peer-id 139.5.3.3
> > dlsw remote-peer 0 frame-relay interface Serial0 304 pass-thru
> > interface Serial0
> > frame-relay map dlsw 304
> >
> > r3#sh dlsw peers
> > Peers: state pkts_rx pkts_tx type drops ckts TCP
> > uptime
> > IF Se0 304 CONNECT 19 19 conf 0 - -
> > 00:08:48
> > Total number of connected peers: 1
> > Total number of connections: 1
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 06:45:17 GMT-3