From: John Mistichelli (jmistichelli@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Mar 03 2002 - 23:27:28 GMT-3
I don't think anyone was disputing that. No one said you could do it with NO
peer statements. It looks as if you are getting a little overly excited
about this. Go back and re-read the previous emails and you will see that.
Thanks.
John
7536
-----Original Message-----
From: Manny Gonzalez [mailto:gonzalu@nyp.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 8:57 PM
To: John Mistichelli
Cc: Gregg Malcolm; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: DLSW: Circuits with no remote peer statements?
Exactly, you MUST have a remote peer statement somewhere. Whether is
HUB to SPOKES or SPOKES to HUB... also, POD will form across a border as
well... not just within a group but from group 1 to group two peers.
eMGee
John Mistichelli wrote:
>
> I have reproduced this in a lab. Lab equipment courtesy of
www.routopia.com.
> Yeah, sure, that was a plug...
>
> R1 - frame - R5 - Frame - R2
>
> R5 is the only one with remote peer statements. R1 and R2 have 2 peers
each,
> a promiscuos peer with R5 and POD with each other. Hope that helps...
>
> R1#sho run
> hostname R1
>
> dlsw local-peer peer-id 1.1.1.1 group 1 promiscuous
> dlsw bridge-group 1
> !
> interface Loopback0
> ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.255
> !
> interface Ethernet0/0
> no ip address
> half-duplex
> bridge-group 1
> !
> interface Serial0/0
> ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
> encapsulation frame-relay
> no fair-queue
> cdp enable
> !
> router rip
> version 2
> network 1.0.0.0
> network 10.0.0.0
>
> R1#sho dlsw pe
> Peers: state pkts_rx pkts_tx type drops ckts TCP
> uptime
>
> TCP 5.5.5.5 CONNECT 116 2579 prom 0 0 0
> 00:50:57
>
> TCP 2.2.2.2 CONNECT 17 13 pod 0 0 0
> 00:01:33
>
> Total number of connected peers: 2
> Total number of connections: 2
>
> R1#
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:52 GMT-3