From: Narvaez, Pablo (Pablo.Narvaez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Apr 17 2002 - 14:12:24 GMT-3
I've tested setting an lsap-output-list blocking a SAP value, say 06, on R1 ...
. this causes R1 not no initiate connections destined for that lsap service ...
. from my testing ang as far as I could experiment, this does not stop R2 to se
nd requests for this lsap which causes R2 to trasverse the link with this lsap
value but not R1 no "complete" such ckt if lsap and rsap are the same.
Compared to your question about not SNA traffic across the link, please correct
me if wrong, but I think you should set this lsap acl on both routers. If sett
ing this list only on one router, that will traduced like "no SNA connections A
CTIVE" on the link, BUT if you want to avoid this type of traffic to NOT GO THR
U THE LINK I think you should apply it on both routers so SNA requests never le
ave the local router.
What do you think?
cheers,
hocktio
-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Glenn [mailto:WILLIAMSG@PANASONIC.COM]
Sent: Miircoles, 17 de Abril de 2002 07:29 a.m.
To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: lsap-output-list
Hi all,
If there are two routers peering DLSW, R1 and R2 and a lsap-output-list is
put on either one blocking a particular type of traffic like SNA for
example, my question is does putting it on one side of either completely
prevent SNA occurring between the two routers. In other words, it does not
have to be put on both, is this correct? So by putting it on one side, R1
cannot get SNA data and R2 cannot get SNA data. However if the question says
no SNA traffic should be SENT from R1 to R2, then it is to be put on R1, is
that correct? I assume in this scenario, R2 can still send requests for SNA
to R1, but will not be able to receive from R1. Just want to be sure.
TIA
GW
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:11 GMT-3