From: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi (mamoor@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Mar 31 2002 - 06:58:28 GMT-3
i guess u dont have to worry about 2067.
according to Cisco :
Port 2065:
-TCP port 2065 defaults to high priority. In the absence of any other
configuration, this port will
carry all circuit administration frames (CUR_cs, ICR_cs, contact ssp frames,
disconnect ssp
frames, xid, ICR_ex), peer KEEPALIVEs, and capabilities exchange.
Port 1981:
-TCP port 1981 defaults to medium priority. In the absence of any other
configuration, this port
will not carry any traffic.
Port 1982:
-TCP port 1982 defaults to normal priority. In the absence of any other
configuration, this port
will carry information frames (non-broadcast datagram frames).
Note: If you specify priority on the remote peer statement and do nothing
else, all steady traffic
goes in this TCP pipe. If you configure specific traffic to port 2065 (such
as all SNA or
specific SNA devices), all unspecified traffic goes in this TCP pipe.
Port 1983:
-TCP port 1983 defaults to low priority. In the absence of any other
configuration, this port will
carry broadcast traffic (CUR_ex, Name_query_ex, SSP DATA/DGRM broadcasts).
You can use classification techniques such as SAP prioritization to change
the port assignment of
traffic destined for DLSw+. However, these techniques have no impact on how
the traffic is handled on
the output queue. To control how each of the TCP ports is handled on the
output queue, you must map
the TCP ports to different queue numbers, define the queuing algorithm, and
apply that queue list to
the output interface.
U just have to worry about the above port for queuing and nothing else...
this is straight for CISCO SNA
course.
-Mamoor
----- Original Message -----
From: Lupi, Guy <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 2:58 AM
Subject: DLSw and Queueing
> When queueing for DLSw, I have seen a lot of configs that take into
account
> tcp ports 2067, 2065, 1983, 1982, and 1981. What about unicast udp, I
have
> been doing some debugging and found that there is unicast udp from source
> port 0 to destination port 2067, and from the docs on CCO that is explorer
> traffic. You can disable it with "dlsw udp-disable". I was wondering if
> anyone had any comments on whether or not these udp ports should be added
to
> a queueing configuration for dlsw, I imagine they would unless they
> specified "queue all traffic with the exception of explorers".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:27 GMT-3