From: Nick Shah (nshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Mar 04 2002 - 19:49:46 GMT-3
There seems to be a few differences as to how different authors handle Frame
relay / inverse arps / sub interfaces / dlci mappings.
I tend to use Caslow's method for most purposes, primarily because it makes
more sense to be correct than anyone else, and it works. except for a couple
of things which have changed with IOS (like using static mapping & dynamic
mapping for same DLCI didnt work on older IOS, but works in newer). The
chapter on Frame Relay is prolly the best written chapter in the whole book,
the rest of them lack the depth and details.
Caslow is right on TS as well.
I would read Solie with a pinch of salt, since there are a few errors here
and there.
Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Giblin Dean L." <dlgiblin@VASC.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 6:25 AM
Subject: Frame Relay Configuration
> I have been reading about and working on several Frame-Relay labs. I have
a couple specific questions pertaining to practice labs, and a general
question at the end.
>
> Solie's Book - Lab 13, pg 378-381
> When I compared my answer to the lab configurations I found a couple of
discrepancies listed below. The statements with * were not in my
configurations.
>
> Hostname scotts_house
> Interface serial0
> * No arp frame-relay
> * No frame-relay inverse-arp
>
> Insturctions read, "Prevent dynamic mapping of the PVC between
scotts_houst and mini_me. I did not interpret this prevent all dynamic
mapping on the PVC. Per Caslow, frame-relay map statements disable
inverse-arp for both the protocol and the dlci. This circuit was configured
with relay map statements. What am I overlooking??
>
> The same held true for interface Serial0 on router mini_me.
>
> On the Starbucks_90210 router serial0 interface I did not include the
frame-relay interface-dlci 131 command. Per Caslow, "Frame-Relay
interface-DLCI statements are useless in a physical interface only
configuration ..." Am I missing something here?
>
> Solie's Book - Lab 14
> This lab requests traffic shaping be enable to prevent the T1 circuit from
over running a 64k CIR circuit.
>
> In the configuration example on page 391 the answer is shown as placing a
"frame-relay class 64k" statement on the Serial0.1 interface with the
map-class defined elsewhere. Per Caslow pg 811 this would provide Generic
Traffic Shaping (GTS) which from my understanding would impact all
transmission across this interface including the other T1 <-> T1 interface
on the multipoint interface. Page 812 of Caslow explains how to implement
Frame-Relay Traffic Shaping (FRTS) and recommends placing this command
within the definition of the frame-relay interface-dlci command so that the
64k traffic shaping policy will only apply to the one circuit. Am I being
too picky or am I missing the big picture?
>
> General Question - I believe I am starting to get a handle on the
configuration of Frame-Relay circuits. However when I start a lab and the
lab does not specifically state the type of interface, physical or
sub-interface, and there are no requirements that require one type of
interface or the other which is the better interface to use (for the lab
exam) that is. I understand the inherent benefit of the sub interface,
however on some labs I generate a working configuration go to check my
answer only to find they used an alternate solution. Do you have advise as
to how to isolate the best way to make this determination?
>
> TIA,
>
> Dean
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:52 GMT-3