From: Paul (p_chopin@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 01:07:33 GMT-3
I read somewhere that if we have all peers configured
with dlsw remote statements(instead of promiscuous)
then dlsw backup peer will be overwritten and the
state will show up as connect.I wonder what is
solution in this case. What's gonna happened if
primary peer (R2) has higher cost than backup (R4)
--- elping <elpingu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> no.
> backup peers will be disconnected till the primary
> is down.
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> > Hi group,
> > I wonder if it is normal for backup dlsw peer to
> have
> > state connect.I always assumed that backup peer
> kicks
> > in when primary connection goes down.
> > I have R2 and R4 routers attached to the same
> token
> > ring. R1 primary session supposed to be to R2 and
> in
> > case R2 is down , R1 should peer to R4.I have
> > configured backup peer with linger command on R1
> ,but
> > the connection to R4 stays up all the time.
> > All routers have remote statements hardcoded. We
> are
> > not allowed to use promiscious mode on anyone of
> the
> > routers.
> > Did anybody run to the same problem?
> > What am I doing wrong? Should I use border group
> > peers?
> > Thanks.Paul
> > Here are simple configs:
> > R1
> > dlsw local-peer peer-id 139.1.1.1
> > dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 139.1.2.2
> > dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 139.1.4.4 backup-peer
> 139.1.2.2
> > linger 5
> >
> > R2
> > dlsw local-peer peer-id 139.1.2.2
> > dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 139.1.1.1
> >
> > R4
> > dlsw local-peer peer-id 139.1.4.4 cost 2
> > dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 139.1.1.1
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:34 GMT-3