From: Wes Stevens (ccie_miami@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 09:25:48 GMT-3
Before dlsw you could do remote bridgeing which is simular to your tunnel
example. I had the misfortune to take over a network trying to do sna with
remote bridging a few years back. To make matters even worse it was over
frame and to latin america. The sessions timed out and died constantly. I am
not sure they ever got any real work done on it.
>From: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@ldd.net>
>Reply-To: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@ldd.net>
>To: "'Wes Stevens'" <ccie_miami@hotmail.com>
>CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: This command is an unreleased and unsupported feature
>Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 22:39:27 -0500
>
>I Agree. I guess a bridged tunnel is a primitive forerunner of vlans.
>It's not really new nor useful. Nor could it replace dlsw other than a
>single point to point bridge. But the fun thing is that it worked.
>
>
>BTW, the message "This command is an unreleased and unsupported feature"
>came from my router, when I typed the bridge-group command on the tunnel
>interface. So I guess it is unsupported.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wes Stevens [mailto:ccie_miami@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 10:17 PM
>To: msnyder@ldd.net; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: This command is an unreleased and unsupported feature
>
>Tunnels and bridges are not exactly what I would call unsupported. The
>reason you do not see people using them instead of dlsw is that they
>will
>not work very well. Most dlsw is for sna traffic. Sna is an old an very
>time
>critical beast. It also puts a lot of useless traffic accross the link.
>It
>will flood your tunnel with local acks and then the sna sessions will
>timeout and die.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:59:09 GMT-3