From: Jeongwoo Park (jpark@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 20:15:01 GMT-3
I think that when you use Direct encap, it is mandatory to use "pass-thru"
Here is what I got.
Salinas_New(config)#dlsw remote-peer 0 interface s0/0
%For direct encapsulation, must specify pass-thru
Anyone wants to add?
-----Original Message-----
From: John Neiberger [mailto:neiby@ureach.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 1:55 PM
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 - 10:58:04 GMT-3