From: fwells12 (fwells12@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jan 08 2002 - 16:08:33 GMT-3
>From my work with DLSW I have found the quickest way to make the DLSW backup
circuits take effect is to initiate outbound traffic from the primary peer.
I have found that even over an ISDN backup connection I can have it up in a
couple of seconds. I do have PC's for end hosts in my testbed though...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Oliver" <stevie_oliver@hotmail.com>
To: <Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:39 AM
Subject: RE: DLSW backup peer.
> The fst just happened to be the transport I had configured at the time.
> I've changed it to TCP with promiscious mode at R2 and R3 and no change.
It
> takes 4 missed keepalives before the change to and from the backup peer is
> made. I take it DLSW is just inherently slow to flip to a backup peer ?
I
> even specified a linger of 0 but still it takes 4 missed keepalives before
a
> changeover either way.
>
> Stephen.
>
> R1
> dlsw local-peer peer-id 137.6.2.2
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 137.6.5.5
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 137.6.3.3 backup-peer 137.6.5.5 linger 0
> dlsw circuit-keepalives
>
> R2
> dlsw local-peer peer-id 137.6.5.5 promiscuous
> dlsw circuit-keepalives
>
> R3dlsw local-peer peer-id 137.6.3.3 promiscuous
> dlsw circuit-keepalives
>
>
>
>
> >From: "McCallum, Robert" <Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com>
> >To: 'Stephen Oliver' <stevie_oliver@hotmail.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: RE: DLSW backup peer.
> >Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 17:28:38 -0000
> >
> >actually no looking at your configs why use fst. try using tcp see if
> >that's any faster.
> >Also when using backup peers in such a manner you should be using
> >promiscuous on R2 and R3 with no remote-peer statements. I know that if
> >you use remote-peers when using TCP the peering gets into a whole lot of
> >mess.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Stephen Oliver [mailto:stevie_oliver@hotmail.com]
> >Sent: 08 January 2002 17:21
> >To: Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: RE: DLSW backup peer.
> >
> >
> >thanks for the hint, hint but....
> >
> >I know I can use the linger keyword to hold the backup peer for a length
of
> >time after the primary peer comes back.. That's not what I asked though.
> >
> >
> > >From: "McCallum, Robert" <Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com>
> > >To: 'Stephen Oliver' <stevie_oliver@hotmail.com>,
ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: RE: DLSW backup peer.
> > >Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 17:08:45 -0000
> > >
> > >try lingering about.....hint hint
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Stephen Oliver [mailto:stevie_oliver@hotmail.com]
> > >Sent: 08 January 2002 16:56
> > >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: DLSW backup peer.
> > >
> > >
> > >How long should it take for a peer to go into disconnect and a backup
to
> > >connect in a DLSW connection. I have one router R1 with R2 as its
> >primary
> > >peer and R3 as its backup peer. When I kill the link to the primary
peer
> > >it
> > >can take 1-2 mins to switch over to the backup peer and the same to
> >switch
> > >back when the primary peer is reachable again. Is this normal. Is
there
> > >any
> > >way to speed it up. The relevant parts of the configs are below.
> > >
> > >Thanks, Stephen.
> > >
> > >R1
> > >dlsw local-peer peer-id 137.6.2.2
> > >dlsw remote-peer 0 fst 137.6.5.5
> > >dlsw remote-peer 0 fst 137.6.3.3 backup-peer 137.6.5.5
> > >dlsw circuit-keepalives
> > >
> > >R2
> > >dlsw local-peer peer-id 137.6.5.5
> > >dlsw remote-peer 0 fst 137.6.2.2
> > >dlsw circuit-keepalives
> > >
> > >R3
> > >dlsw local-peer peer-id 137.6.3.3
> > >dlsw remote-peer 0 fst 137.6.2.2
> > >dlsw circuit-keepalives
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:20 GMT-3