From: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi (mamoor@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Apr 06 2002 - 13:40:57 GMT-3
This all thing is driving me crazy. will take care that i the real lab...
one should have to idea
-Mamoor
----- Original Message -----
From: Engelhard M. Labiro <engelhard@netmarks.co.jp>
To: Chua, Parry <Parry.Chua@compaq.com>; John Neiberger <neiby@ureach.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: DLSw+ over FR with pass thru PART 2
> 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