From: RSiddappa@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri Feb 22 2002 - 02:23:02 GMT-3
Hey Buddy,
This is absolutely a valid command and confiuration. There no
misconfiguration in this. I have have tested quite a bit of this and it is
absolutely correct.
Mail me if u ahve doubts.
R.
-----Original Message-----
From: MADMAN [mailto:dmadlan@qwest.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 5:57 PM
To: Siddappa, Rajeev
Cc: neiby@ureach.com; jim.phillipo@guardent.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Frame map vs intfc DLCI
Yes but I think it's a misconfiguration that happens to usually work.
Dave
> RSiddappa@NECBNS.com wrote:
>
> U can use Intf-dlci for Multi-point subinterfaces also.
>
> R.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MADMAN [mailto:dmadlan@qwest.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 4:23 PM
> To: Siddappa, Rajeev
> Cc: neiby@ureach.com; jim.phillipo@guardent.com;
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Frame map vs intfc DLCI
>
> Not sure what your saying exactly but the physical interface is
> multipoint period. Subinterfaces are what you configure them to be.
> multipoint use maps, p-p use frame-relay interface-dlci or automgic
> for
> either though I don;t recommend automagic.
>
> Dave
>
> > RSiddappa@NECBNS.com wrote:
> >
> > What I ment was for a Multi-point subinterface. ( that is u r
> logical
> > interface).
> > Think that u have configured couple of miltipoint subintefaces on
> one
> > serail interface.
> >
> > R.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MADMAN [mailto:dmadlan@qwest.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 4:10 PM
> > To: Siddappa, Rajeev
> > Cc: neiby@ureach.com; jim.phillipo@guardent.com;
> > ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Frame map vs intfc DLCI
> >
> > It will happen automagically. If a sh frame map tells you the
> DLCI
> > is
> > dynamic it was learned via inverse arp
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > RSiddappa@NECBNS.com wrote:
> > >
> > > What do u do when they ask in the lab, do not use fram-relay map
> > statement.
> > > How ill u configure a DLCi for Multipoint interface. ( Do not need
>
> > to worry
> > > about physical, since DLCI will be assigned directly to the
> physical
> >
> > > interface)
> > >
> > > My 2 cents..
> > >
> > > R.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Neiberger [mailto:neiby@ureach.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 11:59 AM
> > > To: jim.phillipo@guardent.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: Frame map vs intfc DLCI
> > >
> > > It's very interesting that you mention this today. I'd never,
> > > ever, seen anyone use the frame-relay interface-dlci command on
> > > multipoint interfaces until last night when another list member
> > > who shall remain nameless (Tim Ouellette) called me about this
> > > exact issue.
> > >
> > > We had a hub router configured with a multipoint subinterface
> > > using two frame-relay interface-dlci commands instead of frame
> > > maps. At first I thought this wouldn't work at all but it did,
> > > somewhat. The command reference says appears to say that it
> > > ought to work in conjunction with inverse ARP.
> > >
> > > However, it didn't seem to be stable and behaved erratically.
> > > When we removed those two statements and replaced them with two
> > > frame maps things settled down quite nicely.
> > >
> > > Specifically, we were having issues with EIGRP. It seemed to
> > > work, but the output of show ip eigrp neighbors indicated that
> > > things might not be working as they ought to be. Sorry, I
> > > don't have that info available here at work but if Tim reads
> > > this might be able to post the exact results.
> > >
> > > I've always been under the impression that we only used the
> > > frame-relay interface-dlci command on point-to-point
> > > subinterfaces so I've always used frame maps in all other cases.
> > >
> > > What do you all think about this issue? Is there a time to use
> > > one or the other on multipoint interfaces? Any gotchas we need
> > > to look out for?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:30 GMT-3