From: Bob Sinclair (bsin@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Mar 03 2002 - 19:37:26 GMT-3
Jason, JohnM,
You guys are absolutely right. DLSW+ spokes do not have to have remote-peer st
atements pointing to the border peer. All the spokes need is the group number
and promiscuous. Never saw it done this way in the texts, but it sure as heck
works.
THANKS!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Sinclair" <sinclairj@powertel.com.au>
To: "'Bob Sinclair'" <bsin@erols.com>; "John Mistichelli" <jmistichelli@yahoo.c
om>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 6:16 PM
Subject: RE: DLSW: Circuits with no remote peer statements?
> Bob,
>
> I would say try using promiscuous on the spokes and defining the remote peer
> on the border routers. Then I think this will work for you.
>
> Ie
>
>
> SpokeA
> -------------------------------------------borderA--------------------------
> ----------------borderB---------------------------------spokeB
> (no remote-peer statement) (remote-peer spoke B and borderB)
> (remote-peer spoke B and borderB) (no remote-peer statement)
> (border statement)
> (border stament)
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Jason Sinclair
> Manager, Network Support Group
> POWERTEL
> Ground Level, 55 Clarence Street,
> SYDNEY NSW 2000
> AUSTRALIA
> office: + 61 2 8264 3820
> mobile: + 61 416 105 858
> * sinclairj@powertel.com.au
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Sinclair [mailto:bsin@erols.com]
> Sent: Monday, 4 March 2002 07:32
> To: John Mistichelli
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: DLSW: Circuits with no remote peer
> statements?
>
> I have used POD to get B to set up a circuit between A and
> C. In that scenario, you do not require a full mesh. But in every example
> I have seen, A and C point to B with remote peer statements that make them
> part of the group. Does POD work when the spokes have no (nada, none)
> remote peer statements at all?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Mistichelli" <jmistichelli@yahoo.com>
> To: "Bob Sinclair" <bsin@erols.com>;
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 3:50 PM
> Subject: RE: DLSW: Circuits with no remote peer statements?
>
>
> > Yes, its called Peer-on-demand.
> >
> > It is on by default. All you have to do is configure the
> router with the
> > peer statements as a border peer.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > Bob Sinclair
> > Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 2:03 PM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: DLSW: Circuits with no remote peer statements?
> >
> >
> > DLSW Gurus,
> >
> > Is it possible to have a circuit set up between two
> routers if neither of
> > them has any remote peer statements? Suppose you have
> routers A, B and C
> > runnng DLSW. B has remote peer statements to both A and
> C. A and C are
> > promiscuous. Absolutely no peer statements on A or C.
> Can a device
> > attached to A connect to a device attached to C? Would
> static resources
> > help?
> >
> > Thanks. Just Wondering.
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:51 GMT-3