From: Paul (p_chopin@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat May 18 2002 - 21:29:05 GMT-3
David I still wonder if need some kind of statement on
R3 pointing to TR on R2- lets say dlsw peer-on-demand
?
Thanks for explanation.I have hard time with DlSW ,
because is not so easy to test in remote lab
enviroment.
Pau
--- David Luu <wicked01@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> use the promiscuous command on the local-peer of R2
> and R3 since you do not
> want remote-peer statements, also add the
> backup-peer option on R1...do the
> previous mentioned on R3 and dlsw bridge-group in
> global config and
> bridge-group on the ethernet interface, you could do
> without the
> prom-peer-defaults, unless you want to change the
> values
>
> you do not need to do border peers with this setup
>
>
>
> At 04:09 PM 5/18/2002 -0700, Paul wrote:
> >Hi Group,
> >I ran into interesting problem, and I'm not sure if
> I
> >have right solution. Three routers: R1, R2,R3
> >connected
> >by FR R1-R2 & R1-R3.R2 and R3 conneced by
> >ethernet.Token ring on R1 and R2.Only remote peer
> >statements are allowed on R1. R3 is used only as
> >backup.R1 should be able to access TR and Ehernet
> on
> >R2 if frame-relay R1-R2 brakes down.What do we need
> on
> >R3?
> >Only dlsw local peer prom + dlsw bridge group 1 ?
> >I don't think it is enough. Maybe border + group
> >statement on R1?
> >What do you think gays?
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:59:00 GMT-3