From: Bob Sinclair (bsin@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Mar 05 2002 - 17:17:09 GMT-3
My 2 cents:
R1 ip is 1.1.1.1 R2 ip is 2.2.2.2 R3 ip is 3.3.3.3
We want POD with minimum remote-peer statements (2). Make R2 the border peer (
hub) and R1 and R3 spokes:
R2
dlsw local-peer peer-id 2.2.2.2 group 1 border promiscuous
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 1.1.1.1
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 3.3.3.3
R1
dlsw local-peer peer-id 1.1.1.1 group 1 promiscuous
R3
dlsw local-peer peer-id 3.3.3.3 group 1 promiscuous
I think you will see if you enter as above that R2 has two dlsw peers connected
. R1 and R3 each have a peer connection to R2. And R1 will get a POD to R3 if
needed.
-bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ahmed Mamoor Amimi" <mamoor@ieee.org>
To: "Shadi" <ccie@investorsgrp.com>; "Fred Ingham" <fningham@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: "ccielab" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; "Manny Gonzalez" <gonzalu@nyp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: DLSW: Circuits with no remote peer statements?
> 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