From: John Mistichelli (jmistichelli@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Mar 05 2002 - 08:02:46 GMT-3
The POD peers are stuborn. They don't like to show up until there is a
circuit needed between the spokes. Try putting a Windows NetBEUI client off
of either spoke.
John
7536
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Shadi
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:25 AM
To: Fred Ingham
Cc: ccielab; Manny Gonzalez
Subject: Re: DLSW: Circuits with no remote peer statements?
Hi Guys,
I was doing DLSW lately, but I have faced that I can not make the POD
connection my setup is the same as the below setup, and I have the same
configuration, but the Peer on demand is not appearing??
When I look to any of the spoke Routers I see only the Hub Router Connect
but the other side Spoke POD No, I made the configuration with all scenarios
without success!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Ingham" <fningham@worldnet.att.net>
To: <RSiddappa@NECBNS.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: DLSW: Circuits with no remote peer statements?
> Sure, why not. R1 will have a conf peer with R2, and a prom peer with
> R3. R2 will
> have a conf peer with R3 and a prom peer with R1. R3 will have a prom
> peer with R1 and a prom peer with R2. And a full mesh results.
>
> Cheers, Fred.
>
>
>
> RSiddappa@NECBNS.com wrote:
> >
> > What happens if they say,
> >
> > Each peer can have only one remote-peer statement.
> >
> > Can we do it like this
> >
> > R1----------------R2------------------R3
> >
> > R1 will have remote peer to R2 and a promiscuous statement.
> > R2 will have remote peer for R3 and a promiscuous statement.
> > R3 will have remote perr for R1 and a promiscuous statement.
> >
> > R.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Manny Gonzalez [mailto:gonzalu@nyp.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 7:57 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 - 10:56:53 GMT-3