From: Sasa Milic (smilic@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Dec 17 2001 - 14:26:29 GMT-3
Yeah, but we already know what connection will be tear down.
The question is what would proctors say if we configure
too much - maybe they would think that we don't know that one
connection will be kept active, and that we don't know that
we don't need both lines in access list. Because of that, I
said that access list is different.
Sasa
"Stephen C. Feldberg" wrote:
>
> The list is the same on both sides. The line that will match the DLSW
> traffic depends on which peer has the higher peer-id. The higher peer-id
> will use port 2065 locally, port >1023 remotely.
>
> Steve
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Albert Lu" <albert_ccie@yahoo.com>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Cc: "'Sasa Milic'" <smilic@EUnet.yu>
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 2:35 AM
> Subject: RE: Custom queue-list for DLSW
>
> > Why would you need to have different access list on both sides?
> >
> > Wouldn't using this two lines on both sides be ok? This will cover off all
> > your cases
> >
> > permit tcp any any eq 2065
> > permit tcp any eq 2065 any
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > Sasa Milic
> > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 3:14 PM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Custom queue-list for DLSW
> >
> >
> > Yes, we need custom queueing on both sides, and access-lists
> > will have swapped source/destination addresses/ports on
> > them. So, on one side you will have source port 2065, and
> > on the other side that will be destination port.
> >
> > Sasa
> >
> > Albert Lu wrote:
> > >
> > > So are custom queues needed on both sides of the link if I wanted DLSW
> to
> > > use certain amount of bandwidth for the link? Does anyone agree with me
> > that
> > > custom queueing only applies to outbound traffic, and you need custom
> > > queueing done on both sides?
> > >
> > > Albert
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > > Stephen C. Feldberg
> > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 4:42 AM
> > > To: Albert Lu
> > > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: Custom queue-list for DLSW
> > >
> > > My understanding is that one line is defined to identify outbound DLSW
> > > traffic if the local peer has the higher peer-id and the other line
> > > identifies the outbound traffic if the remote peer has the higher
> peer-id.
> > >
> > > If you wanted to eliminate one of the lines I suppose that you could
> > > manipulate your peer-ids so that the hub router has the highest id and
> > > eliminate the "permit tcp any any eq 2065" statement.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Albert Lu" <albert_ccie@yahoo.com>
> > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Cc: "'Sasa Milic'" <smilic@EUnet.yu>
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 6:14 AM
> > > Subject: RE: Custom queue-list for DLSW
> > >
> > > > I just thought about something in regards to this problem. I don't
> think
> > > > it's needed for the two lines, as custom queueing is only applied to
> > > > outbound traffic of the interface. Incoming traffic cannot be custom
> > > queued,
> > > > as the traffic has already arrived to the interface and may be using
> > > > whatever amount of bandwidth it started off with.
> > > >
> > > > So my thoughts are that the source would need to be defined as tcp
> port
> > > > 2065. But if you wanted to make sure the bandwidth is allocated for
> the
> > > > link, you might need to put the custom queueing on both sides of the
> > link.
> > > >
> > > > Let me hear your thoughts
> > > >
> > > > Albert
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > > > Sasa Milic
> > > > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 6:08 AM
> > > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Custom queue-list for DLSW
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, do we need to define both lines:
> > > >
> > > > permit tcp any any eq 2065
> > > > permit tcp any eq 2065 any
> > > >
> > > > There will be two connections at the start of peering, but one
> > > > will be dropped during negotiation (at least in cisco case),
> > > > so we will end up with only one connection, and since we know
> > > > peer-ids we also know which connection will be dropped (the one
> > > > from peer with lower peer-id and port >1023 to peer with higher
> > > > peer id and port 2065). The end result is that only one line in
> > > > the access-list is required, right ?
> > > >
> > > > Sasa
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KK FoK wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > During my test I didn't spot any port "2067". The access-list 100 is
> > set
> > > > for
> > > > > incoming access.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do we need to define 2067 as well for custom queue-list ?
> > > > >
> > > > > TCB Local Address Foreign Address (state)
> > > > > 0051987C 10.0.0.100.11018 10.0.0.36.2065 ESTAB
> > > > > 00526F20 10.0.0.100.11021 10.0.0.36.1983 ESTAB
> > > > > 00519CC4 10.0.0.100.11019 10.0.0.36.1981 ESTAB
> > > > > 0053C5F0 10.0.0.100.11020 10.0.0.36.1982 ESTAB
> > > > > 25#sh access-list
> > > > > 25#sh access-lists
> > > > > Extended IP access list 100
> > > > > permit tcp any any eq 2065 (12 matches)
> > > > > permit tcp any eq 2065 any (79 matches)
> > > > > permit tcp any eq 1981 any (3 matches)
> > > > > permit tcp any eq 1982 any (3 matches)
> > > > > permit tcp any eq 1983 any (3 matches)
> > > > > deny ip any any log
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: Liu Jianxin-qch1927 <Jianxin.Liu@invisix.com>
> > > > > >Reply-To: Liu Jianxin-qch1927 <Jianxin.Liu@invisix.com>
> > > > > >To: "'Denise Donohue'" <fradendon@home.com>, "'Albert Lu'"
> > > > > ><albert_ccie@yahoo.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > > >Subject: RE: Custom queue-list for DLSW
> > > > > >Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:21:40 +0800
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The local port 2065is the write pipe port and local port 2067 is
> the
> > > > read
> > > > > >port.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Jianxin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >From: Denise Donohue [mailto:fradendon@home.com]
> > > > > >Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 1:12 PM
> > > > > >To: 'Albert Lu'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > > >Subject: RE: Custom queue-list for DLSW
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >DLSW has to be listed twice in the access list because messages are
> > > both
> > > > > >coming in and going out. Look at the two top lines in that access
> > list
> > > > way
> > > > > >down at the bottom of this email. The first line covers packets
> from
> > > > > >anybody with a dlsw source port, bound for anybody, any destination
> > > port.
> > > > > >The second line covers packets from anywhere, any port, destined
> for
> > > > dlsw.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf
> > Of
> > > > > >Albert Lu
> > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 5:02 PM
> > > > > >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > > >Cc: 'Richard Gallagher'; 'David Vu'
> > > > > >Subject: RE: Custom queue-list for DLSW
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Ok, did some testing. Take a look at the results. The top one is
> > > without
> > > > > >the
> > > > > >priority keyword, and the second one is with the priority keyword.
> > > Looks
> > > > > >like priority keyword has to be used for port 1981, 1982, 1983 to
> be
> > > > used.
> > > > > >Otherwise it's just port 2065.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Port 2067 seems like a port used for non cisco dlsw routers. This
> was
> > > > from
> > > > > >looking at the archives.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >But I'm also confused about why 2065 has to be included twice in
> the
> > > > access
> > > > > >list for source and destination traffic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O CLOSED 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11000 seq 3979558325
> > > > > > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 4128
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: I SYNSENT 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11000 seq
> 4145548835
> > > > > > OPTS 4 ACK 3979558326 SYN WIN 2144
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11000 seq 3979558326
> > > > > > ACK 4145548836 WIN 20480
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: I LISTEN 172.1.1.1:11000 172.1.1.2:2065 seq 4145571375
> > > > > > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 2144
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O SYNRCVD 172.1.1.1:11000 172.1.1.2:2065 seq
> 3917049564
> > > > > > OPTS 4 ACK 4145571376 SYN WIN 4128
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: I SYNRCVD 172.1.1.1:11000 172.1.1.2:2065 seq
> 4145571376
> > > > > > ACK 3917049565 WIN 2144
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11000 seq 3979558326
> > > > > > DATA 395 ACK 4145548836 PSH WIN 20480
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: I ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11000 seq 4145548836
> > > > > > ACK 3979558721 WIN 20085
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: I ESTAB 172.1.1.1:11000 172.1.1.2:2065 seq 4145571376
> > > > > > DATA 428 ACK 3917049565 PSH WIN 20480
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:11000 172.1.1.2:2065 seq 3917049565
> > > > > > ACK 4145571804 WIN 20052
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11000 seq 3979558721
> > > > > > DATA 76 ACK 4145548836 PSH WIN 20480
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:11000 172.1.1.2:2065 seq 3917049565
> > > > > > RST WIN 20052
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: I ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11000 seq 4145548836
> > > > > > ACK 3979558797 WIN 20009
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > -
> > > > > >--------
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11001 seq 2117597008
> > > > > > DATA 395 ACK 4217556762 PSH WIN 20480
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: I ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11001 seq 4217556762
> > > > > > ACK 2117597403 WIN 20085
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: I ESTAB 172.1.1.1:11001 172.1.1.2:2065 seq 4217579488
> > > > > > DATA 428 ACK 477058866 PSH WIN 20480
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:sh11001 172.1.1.2:2065 seq 477058866
> > > > > > ACK 4217579916 WIN 20052
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11001 seq 2117597403
> > > > > > DATA 76 ACK 4217556762 PSH WIN 20480
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O CLOSED 172.1.1.1:1981 172.1.1.2:11002 seq 3562669525
> > > > > > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 4128
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O CLOSED 172.1.1.1:1982 172.1.1.2:11003 seq 1040855164
> > > > > > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 4128
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O CLOSED 172.1.1.1:1983 172.1.1.2:11004 seq 1592008227
> > > > > > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 4128
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:11001 172.1.1.2:2065 seq 477058866
> > > > > > RST WIN 20052
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: I ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11001 seq 4217556762
> > > > > > ACK 2117597479 WIN 20009
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: I SYNSENT 172.1.1.1:1981 172.1.1.2:11002 seq
> 4217767660
> > > > > > OPTS 4 ACK 3562669526 SYN WIN 2144
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:1981 172.1.1.2:11002 seq 3562669526
> > > > > > ACK 4217767661 WIN 204
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: R SYNSENT 172.1.1.1:1982 172.1.1.2:11003 seq
> 1040855164
> > > > > > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 4128
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: R SYNSENT 172.1.1.1:1983 172.1.1.2:11004 seq
> 1592008227
> > > > > > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 4128
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: I SYNSENT 172.1.1.1:1982 172.1.1.2:11003 seq
> 4219752345
> > > > > > OPTS 4 ACK 1040855165 SYN WIN 2144
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:1982 172.1.1.2:11003 seq 1040855165
> > > > > > ACK 4219752346 WIN 20480
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: R SYNSENT 172.1.1.1:1983 172.1.1.2:11004 seq
> 1592008227
> > > > > > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 4128
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: I SYNSENT 172.1.1.1:1983 172.1.1.2:11004 seq
> 4223752716
> > > > > > OPTS 4 ACK 1592008228 SYN WIN 2144
> > > > > >4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:1983 172.1.1.2:11004 seq 1592008228
> > > > > > ACK 4223752717 WIN 20480
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf
> > Of
> > > > > >Richard Gallagher
> > > > > >Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 3:13 AM
> > > > > >To: David Vu; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > > >Subject: Re: Custom queue-list for DLSW
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >David,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"dlsw" keyword is only for FST encapsulation, for TCP you need to
> > > specify
> > > > > >all
> > > > > >the ports involved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Rich
> > > > > >CCIE #7211
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On Dec 12, 9:38am, David Vu chatted about:
> > > > > > > Subject:Custom queue-list for DLSW
> > > > > > > In bootcamp lab 20, it asks you to do a custom queue with
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 50% on DLSW
> > > > > > > 25% on IP
> > > > > > > 25% on IPX
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For DLSW, the solution is
> > > > > > > access-list 101 permit tcp any eq 2065 any
> > > > > > > access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 2065
> > > > > > > access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 2067
> > > > > > > access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 1981
> > > > > > > access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 1982
> > > > > > > access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 1983
> > > > > > > queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 list 101
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would it be easier to do "queue-list 1 protocol dlsw 1" instead
> of
> > > > using
> > > > > >an
> > > > > > > access-list?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:44 GMT-3