From: garcia (e_garcia@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 15:36:20 GMT-3
might also want to read rfc2166 (dlsw v2.0 for appn) - port 2067 is the
"destination" port for tcp connection indications (setup and the like) or
for race conditions under v2.0.
Frank Garcia
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Kinsey <Robert.Kinsey@uk.didata.com>
To: 'Dennis' <cc13@attbi.com>; <steven.j.nelson@bt.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 10:38 AM
Subject: RE: DLSW Custom Queuing.
> Hello Dennis
>
> The following info comes from the CCO Open Forum -
>
> DLSw uses TCP port 2065 as the read port between two switches and port
2067
> as
> the write port between two switches. Check out RFC 1795; this has all the
> detail of the usage of these two ports.
> ______
>
> Therefore we can deduce that 2067 is the source port for dlsw TCP packets
> and would therefore not have to be included in the queuing statements. (it
> being a source and all)
>
> Regards
>
> Rob Kinsey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis [mailto:cc13@attbi.com]
> Sent: 08 May 2002 17:59
> To: steven.j.nelson@bt.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: DLSW Custom Queuing.
>
>
> Sorry Steve,
>
> I beg to differ. I have been following the posts and I read that link
many
> times and I don't see port 2067 mentioned anywhere. Didn't you follow the
> thread before telling me that I wasn't?
>
> I ask again... does anyone have a link on CCO or otherwise that mentions
> that port 2067 should be used in dlsw custom queuing?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> steven.j.nelson@bt.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 11:41 AM
> To: cc13@attbi.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: DLSW Custom Queuing.
>
>
> Dennis
>
> You haven't been following the posts have you ?
>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ibsw/ibdlsw/prodlit/dlsw5_rg.htm
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis [mailto:cc13@attbi.com]
> Sent: 08 May 2002 16:22
> To: ccielab
> Subject: RE: DLSW Custom Queuing.
>
>
> Do you have a link on CCO that states this? I've heard this before but
> could never find a link to verify.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Erhan Kurt
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 10:29 AM
> To: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi; ying chang; steven.j.nelson@bt.com;
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc: stephen.paynter@bt.com
> Subject: RE: DLSW Custom Queuing.
>
>
> Hello my friend Mamoor,
>
> Also add: permit udp any any eq 2067
>
> Never Give Up,
> Erhan
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi [mailto:mamoor@ieee.org]
> Sent: 08 May}s 2002 Gar~amba 17:32
> To: ying chang; steven.j.nelson@bt.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc: stephen.paynter@bt.com
> Subject: Re: DLSW Custom Queuing.
>
> The below that steve have given is the best link for the dlsw queuing and
> stuff.
>
> Every where at the CCO i have seen that when u want to give priority or
> custom-queue to dlsw they have used the access-list and called the port #s
> in it and then applied it to the queuing . I guess this the finest way to
do
> that.
>
> access-list 100 permit tcp any eq 2065 any
> access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq 2065
>
> if using dlsw priority then also do the same for 1981,1982,1983
>
> -Mamoor
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ying chang <ying_c@hotmail.com>
> To: <steven.j.nelson@bt.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Cc: <stephen.paynter@bt.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:49 AM
> Subject: RE: DLSW Custom Queuing.
>
>
> > Steve,
> >
> > Thanks for the info. However, let's go back to the original question:
> >
> > "I was wondering does anyone have a URL that outlines the behaviour of
> > custom queuing when using DLSw keyword. i.e That this keyword permits
SNA
> > traffic only and not all DLSw traffic"
> >
> > The above question troubles me a little bit, because if I interpret the
> > statement correctly, what you are saying is if I use the dlsw keyword in
> my
> > access-list, then SNA traffic will be allowed to go through, but not
> NetBIOS
> > or other non-routable traffic.
> >
> > Why a port number has anything to do with different layer's traffic?
>From
> > the web page, I suspect the dlsw keyword probably is the same as port
> 2065,
> > and we'll only have to worry about the port numbers when the priority
> queue
> > is applied. Otherwise, as far as the custom queue concern, port 2065
> should
> > be sufficient. I know this contradict with the answers I've seen in the
> > past, but I'm more confused than ever when I think about the statement.
> >
> > Well, I guess I'll have to spend sometime to test it out and see what's
> > going on. Until then, if anyone knows when I have to use the the keyword
> > "dlsw" and when I should not (other than priority queue), please let me
> > know.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chang
> >
> >
> > >From: steven.j.nelson@bt.com
> > >Reply-To: steven.j.nelson@bt.com
> > >To: ying_c@hotmail.com, ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >CC: stephen.paynter@bt.com
> > >Subject: RE: DLSW Custom Queuing.
> > >Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 18:25:52 +0100
> > >
> > >Chang Et al,
> > >
> > >I have found the relevant document on CCO, the URL is :-
> > >
> > >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ibsw/ibdlsw/prodlit/dlsw5_rg.htm
> > >
> > >Interestingly enough it states that ports 2065 is also only used when
> > >prioritisation is required.
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >
> > >Steve
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: ying chang [mailto:ying_c@hotmail.com]
> > >Sent: 07 May 2002 17:14
> > >To: Nelson,SJ,Steven,IVNH25 C; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: Re: DLSW Custom Queuing.
> > >
> > >
> > >Hi Steve,
> > >
> > >I also have the same question. Have you verified it can only send SNA
> > >traffic already? If you haven't, I would say setup two PCs and see if
> > >NetBIOS traffic can pass thru the pipe would be a quick way to verify
> this
> > >behavior. After you finish this, you can use dspu to see if there's any
> SNA
> > >circuits. I'm not working on DLSW right now, but please keep me posted,
> > >because I'd like to know the answer too.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Chang
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: steven.j.nelson@bt.com
> > > >Reply-To: steven.j.nelson@bt.com
> > > >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > >Subject: DLSW Custom Queuing.
> > > >Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 16:20:26 +0100
> > > >
> > > >All
> > > >
> > > >I have noted and tested the scenarios using custom queuing to
restrict
> > > >bandwidth on an interface based on packet sizes, and I have used as
> > > >mentioned in this list the access list for DLSw ports instead of the
> DLSw
> > > >keyword in the queuing argument.
> > > >
> > > >I was wondering does anyone have a URL that outlines the behaviour of
> > > >custom
> > > >queuing when using DLSw keyword.
> > > >
> > > >i.e That this keyword permits SNA traffic only and not all DLSw
> traffic,
> > >I
> > > >have searched CCO but cannot find any reference to it.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks in advance
> > > >
> > > >Steve
> > > >
> > > >Steve Nelson
> > > >Customer Engineer
> > > >BT Ignite- National Solutions
> > > >T: +44 (0)1422 338881 M: +44 (0)7811 944172
> > > >e-mail: steven.j.nelson@bt.com
> > > >pp HW A170, PO Box 200(HOM-NZ), London, N18 1ZF
> > > > > British Telecommunications plc
> > > > > Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
> > > > > Registered in England no. 1800000.
> > > > > This electronic message contains information from British
> > > >Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The
> > > >information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or
> entity
> > > >named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
> > > >disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> > > >information
> > > >is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error,
> > > >please
> > > >notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above)
> > > >immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:53 GMT-3