From: John Neiberger (neiby@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Nov 17 2001 - 14:31:35 GMT-3
I'm thinking that DLSw is not bridging, it's simply a transport for bridged
traffic. If one peer receives an ARE from a local ring, it's my
understanding that DLSw would send a unicast CANUREACH to its configured
remote peers.
Even if end stations are transmitting broadcasts, what happens between peers
is unicast, right?
Or am I wrong? Time to do some reading, I think.
Regards,
John
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:06:52 -0800, fwells12 wrote:
| 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