From: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi (mamoor@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Mar 05 2002 - 16:48:13 GMT-3
If ur scenrio is :
r1-----------r2-----------r3
Then there will be 4 remote commands in all.
I am sure u have give one remote command on r1 and one on r3 both pointing
to r2.
And r2 as a border of any group.
U have to give 2 more remote command that is on r1 point to r3 and r3 point
to r1 so that r2 will
perform its actually task that is of border. Then u will see that r1 and r3
are connected and are labeled as POD.
-Mamoor
----- Original Message -----
From: Shadi <ccie@investorsgrp.com>
To: Fred Ingham <fningham@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: ccielab <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; Manny Gonzalez <gonzalu@nyp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:25 PM
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