From: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi (mamoor@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Mar 14 2002 - 13:07:38 GMT-3
No there is no need for multiring xx on translating router.
It is only add on client router on token-ring.
Theory is :
multiring is add just becaouse so that client router should know that there
are multiple rings and i should
also check them if my destination is not found local ... so it produce
explorer frames then add rif .
Nothing to do on translating router.... I am sure about this.
-Mamoor
----- Original Message -----
From: John Neiberger <neiby@ureach.com>
To: <RSiddappa@NECBNS.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: RE: SR/TLB for IP Discoveries (LONG)
> Perhaps not, but I believe I tried to ping without adding
> multiring ip and it did not work. It was then that I added the
> command and the ping succeeded.
>
> I've already blown away the configs to go back to work on my
> IPSec configuration. Perhaps someone either knows the answer
> or will set this up and test it.
>
> If I think about it, I'll set it up again when I get home
> tonight, just to make sure.
>
> John
>
> ---- On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, RSiddappa@NECBNS.com
> (RSiddappa@NECBNS.com) wrote:
>
> >
> > John,
> >
> > This is absolutely good and workign config. But I am stll not
> sure do u
> > need
> > that multiring Ip on the token ring interface fo the router
> doign
> > Translational bridging.
> >
> > I do no think. I had it workign with out that few days back.
> >
> > R.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Neiberger [mailto:neiby@ureach.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 12:17 AM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: SR/TLB for IP Discoveries (LONG)
> >
> >
> > Since I was temporarily fed up with staring at ipsec configs
> I
> > thought I'd take a crack at the SR/TLB stuff going on today.
> I
> > wasn't able to make this work using the configs posted
> today.
> > In fact, I can't figure out why the posted configs were
> working
> > at all. :-)
> >
> > I printed out three different docs from CCO and cross-
> > referenced that with examples from the archives to come up
> with
> > a working solution. Here is the scenario:
> >
> > R2 --- (eth) --- R4 --- (tr) --- R3
> >
> > Let's start with R4 since it's the most complex. The first
> > step is to configure SRB and transparent bridging:
> >
> > no ip routing
> > !
> > source-bridge ring-group 100
> > !
> > int to0
> > source-bridge 10 5 100
> > !
> > int e0
> > bridge-group 1
> > !
> > bridge 1 protocol ieee
> >
> > Then, configure SR/TLB to bridge between the two interfaces:
> >
> > source-bridge transparent 100 200 5 1
> >
> > In that config, the first number is from the source-bridge
> ring-
> > group statement. The second number is the virtual ring
> number
> > that identifies the transparent bridging domain to the SRB
> > domain. The third number is the bridge number taken from the
> > SRB config on the token ring interface. Finally, the fourth
> > number is the bridge-group number taken from the ethernet
> > interface config.
> >
> > At this point things won't be working just yet. On R2, the
> > ethernet-only router, we simply need to configure an IP
> > address. Then, we need to add an IP address to R3 that's in
> > the same subnet. Go ahead, try to ping...it won't work yet,
> > and here's where it starts to get a little tricky if you're
> > doing this with IP.
> >
> > On R4 you've configured SR/TLB which handles layer-two
> traffic
> > just fine but it doesn't know how to handle embedded layer
> > three addresses. To fix this, add the following:
> >
> > bridge 1 bitswap-layer3-addresses
> >
> > That's fairly straightforward, but things aren't going to
> work
> > yet. If you try to ping R2 from R3, the initial ARP will
> > fail. Why? Because the router needs to send an explorer and
> > it's not configured to do so. So, go to R3 and add the
> > following:
> >
> > int to0
> > source-bridge 10 4 200 (the 4 and 200 are irrelevant)
> > source-bridge spanning
> > multiring ip <------ important!
> >
> > Pings still won't work until you go back to the SR/TLB router
> > and add 'source-bridge spanning' and 'multiring ip'. At that
> > point, pings should succeed.
> >
> > With this solution there are no guarantees that all IP
> traffic
> > will work. In fact, this is configuration is probably a
> really
> > bad idea if you're running IP, but it at least sort of
> works.
> >
> > I broke this down into sections to show the steps I went
> > through to figure this out and make it work. Here are the
> > final working configs:
> >
> > R2 (ethernet):
> >
> > int ethernet0
> > ip address 172.16.43.2 255.255.255.0
> >
> > R3 (token ring):
> >
> > int tokenring0
> > ip add 172.16.43.3 255.255.255.0
> > source-bridge 10 4 200
> > source-bridge spanning
> > multiring ip
> >
> > R4 (SR/TLB):
> >
> > no ip routing
> > !
> > source-bridge ring-group 100
> > source-bridge transparent 100 200 5 1
> > !
> > int ethernet 0
> > bridge-group 1
> > !
> > int tokenring0
> > source-bridge 10 50 100
> > source-bridge spanning
> > multiring ip
> > !
> > bridge 1 protocol ieee
> > bridge 1 bitswap-layer3-addresses
> >
> > I currently have these exact configs on my routers, and here
> is
> > the result:
> >
> > R3#
> > R3#sho arp
> > Protocol Address Age (min) Hardware Addr Type
> > Interface
> > Internet 172.16.43.3 - 0000.30e2.cc0c SNAP
> > TokenRing0
> > R3#ping 172.16.43.2
> >
> > Type escape sequence to abort.
> > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.16.43.2, timeout is 2
> > seconds:
> > .!!!!
> > Success rate is 80 percent (4/5), round-trip min/avg/max =
> > 8/8/8 ms
> > R3#sho arp
> > Protocol Address Age (min) Hardware Addr Type
> > Interface
> > Internet 172.16.43.3 - 0000.30e2.cc0c SNAP
> > TokenRing0
> > Internet 172.16.43.2 0 0000.30b1.4bc1 SNAP
> > TokenRing0
> > R3#
> >
> > I sure hope I don't have to mess with this in the real lab,
> but
> > this little adventure was very enlightening. At least I
> think
> > I could get it working if I run into it when it counts. :-)
> >
> > Regards,
> > John
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:08 GMT-3