From: kym blair (kymblair@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Dec 22 2001 - 20:50:04 GMT-3
As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), we use ring-list,
port-list, and bgroup-list depending on what type of interface we are
mapping DLSW traffic to. Ring-list maps all the traffic from the remote
peers (specified by the list number) to token rings specified in the
ring-list (either physical TR interface or a virtual ring created with the
ring-group statement). Likewise, port-list maps traffic to the specified
physical token ring and serial interfaces, and bgroup-list maps traffic to
the specified bridged ethernet interfaces.
We can eliminate the RING-LIST command by using "0" for the remote-peer list
number; traffic from ALL peers would then be mapped to ALL rings (which is
usually what we want anyway, so no need to use the ring-list command to
specify which peers and rings).
Question 1: could we also eliminate the PORT-LIST command if we used "0" for
the remote-peer list number? Of course, DLSW traffic would still go out the
token ring interface, but how about the serial?
Question 2: likewise, could we eliminate the BGROUP-LIST command if we used
"0" for the remote-peer list number? Would the DLSW traffic still get
bridged to the transparent bridged interface?
Thanks. Kym
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:46 GMT-3