From: Waters, Kivas (UK72) (Kivas.Waters@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Dec 05 2001 - 09:38:33 GMT-3
Hi Albert, yes, thats my understanding of it.
Strictly speaking the DLSw cost shown by the "sh dlsw cap" command is not
wrong. All it's saying is that during the DLSw capabilities exchange the
remote peer requested a certain cost to be associated to it. Whether we
manually apply a different DLSw cost to the remote peer or not, is not going
to change the capabilities exchange or the results of the "sh dlsw cap"
command. I have not confirmed this but I suspect that "sh dlsw peer" will
indicate the actual cost applied to a particular remote peer.
regards
Ki
-----Original Message-----
From: Albert Lu [mailto:albert_ccie@yahoo.com]
Sent: 05 December 2001 12:20
To: 'Waters, Kivas (UK72)'
Cc: 'Christopher Dosch'; 'Ccielab'
Subject: RE: DLSW Peer > DLSW Peer
Yes, that makes sense. No point in having the other end forcing you to go
their way with a lower cost. So are you saying that the sh dlsw cap output
may be wrong for the cost ?
-----Original Message-----
From: Waters, Kivas (UK72) [mailto:Kivas.Waters@Honeywell.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 11:17 PM
To: Albert Lu; 'Christopher Dosch'
Cc: 'Ccielab'
Subject: RE: DLSW Peer > DLSW Peer
Hello chaps, as far as I know, DLSw costs work as follows ...
RA------DLSw------RB
Cost applied to Local Peer statement on RA will be discovered by remote peer
RB via capability exchange. This is used to influence the remote DLSw peer
RB.
At the remote end RB you can overide the cost advertised by RA by
configuring a cost on RB when configuting the remote peer statement for RA.
The confusing thing is that people do a "sh dlsw cap" to confirm the DLSw
cost associated with a remote peer. It appears that the DLSw cost applied
to the RB's config, "dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp RB cost 2" has no effect. The
command IS in effect it's just that "sh dlsw cap" shows the capabilities
exchange and not any cost changes made by the DLSw remnote peer cost
statement.
Hope this clarifies
regards
Ki
-----Original Message-----
From: Albert Lu [mailto:albert_ccie@yahoo.com]
Sent: 05 December 2001 11:36
To: 'Christopher Dosch'
Cc: 'Ccielab'
Subject: RE: DLSW Peer > DLSW Peer
Christopher,
Try dynamic peers.
dlsw local-peer peer-id 10.2.17.1
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 10.2.24.2 dynamic inactivity 20 dest-mac
4000.3745.0000
Actually, cost can be both defined on the dlsw remote-peer command, and also
at the destination router. Not too sure what the ramifications are of each.
Would someone like to enlighten us?
Albert
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Christopher Dosch
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 9:29 PM
To: Ccielab
Subject: DLSW Peer > DLSW Peer
Can somebody help with the following scenario? I have three
routers R1,R2 and R3, R1 is connected to both R2 and R3, R2 and R3 are
also connected. I only want R1 to connect to R2 or R3 when there is
data to send. Also will cost alone allow me to prefer R2 over R3?
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:38 GMT-3