From: Engelhard M. Labiro (engelhard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Apr 06 2002 - 04:19:40 GMT-3
Hi All,
Hope that this thread still alive.
Just got more time to test again these DLSw+ option combination,
following are the result, and you can see which combination get
a "CONNECT" peer`s state.
Test1:
dlsw remote-peer 0 frame interface s0/0 102 pass-thru
frame-relay map dlsw 102 broad
Result of "sh dlsw peer":
Peers type: IF
Peers state: CONNECT
Test2:
dlsw remote-peer 0 frame interface s0/0 102 pass-thru
frame-relay map llc2 102 broad
Result of "sh dlsw peer":
Peers type: IF
Peers state: DISCONN
Test3:
dlsw remote-peer 0 frame-relay interface s0/0 102
frame-relay map dlsw 102 broad
Result of "sh dlsw peer":
Peers type: LLC2
Peers status: DISCONN
Test4:
dlsw remote-peer 0 frame-relay interface s0/0 102
frame-relay map llc2 102 broad
Result of "sh dlsw peer":
Peers type: LLC2
Peers status: CONNECT
Engelhard M. Labiro$B!!(B(engelhard@netmarks.co.jp)
Security Group, Technical Solution Center, Netmarks Inc.
2-13-34 Konan, Minato-Ku, Tokyo 108-0075
Tel: +81-3-5461-2575, Fax: +81-3-5461-2093
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chua, Parry" <Parry.Chua@compaq.com>
To: "John Neiberger" <neiby@ureach.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 4:54 PM
Subject: RE: DLSw+ over FR with pass thru PART 2
> Sound like DLSW design guide is correct, it more logical.
> Direct encapsulation with pass-thru seen to match the way direct
encapsulation. End to end LLc2 ack is require inorder to ensure the
connectivity. Hence it should use frame map DLSW
>
> LLc2 Encapsulation(DLSW lite) support for FR with LLc2 and support local
ack. The best way is to test it out.
>
> Parry Chua
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Neiberger [mailto:neiby@ureach.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:55 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: DLSw+ over FR with pass thru PART 2
>
>
> Well, I thought that we used 'frame map
> llc2' with pass thru (meaning that we're
> passing thru LLC2 frames) and 'frame map
> dlsw' without pass through, meaning that
> we're locally acknowledging LLC2 and not
> 'passing it thru' over the link. I then
> checked the 12.1 Configuration Guides on CCO
> and there is an example that agreed with me.
>
> However, I was notified in private that I
> was wrong so I checked CCO again. If you
> look at the Designing DLSw+ Internetworks
> document, it shows that I was wrong.
> According to that document:
>
> WITH pass-thru:
>
> frame map dlsw
>
> WITHOUT pass-thru:
>
> frame map llc2
>
> This is counterintuitive to me, but since
> we're talking about Cisco that's nothing
> new. :-) I still say it makes NO sense to
> map llc2 frames to a DLCI if we're not
> passing LLC2 frames!! If we're not passing
> thru the llc2 frames, then we're passing
> DLSw-encapsulated frames and should map dlsw
> to the PVC, *not* llc2. If we *are* passing
> thru LLC2 frames, then it makes more sense
> to then map llc2 to the PVC. Apparently,
> Cisco completely disagrees with this logic.
>
> Having inconsistent documentation on CCO
> makes it even more confusing. I've been
> looking at the configuration guides all
> along thinking I was right. Now I
> definitely need to brush up on my dlsw
> configs over the next couple of days so I
> can keep this straight!
>
> John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:57 GMT-3