From: David Luu (wicked01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat May 18 2002 - 22:16:03 GMT-3
you do not need dlsw peer-on-demand because on R1 you have static peers
At 05:29 PM 5/18/2002 -0700, Paul wrote:
>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