From: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi (mamoor@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Mar 05 2002 - 18:19:46 GMT-3
Yes this is true, u can do that u with a min of 2 remote connads.... but u
didnt read the full thread.
Shadi wanted to make r1 see r3 as CONNECTED with POD and vice versa
for that u have to do a remote on r1 and r3 to get this .
-Mamoor
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Sinclair <bsin@erols.com>
To: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi <mamoor@ieee.org>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: DLSW: Circuits with no remote peer statements?
> 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