From: elping (elpingu@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 02:04:45 GMT-3
ok hold on...
i just finished configuring this and it works ....
configure the hub and then the spokes...
the backup peer was disconeted and the primary connected.....
Michael Popovich wrote:
> Paul-
>
> I agree with you.
>
> Here is a link on Cisco:
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/697/dlsw_redundancy.html#solution
>
> Notice on Solution #3 where backup-peers is discussed. Every solution I have
> seen with backup-peers and in my lab for testing shows that if your peers
> are in promiscuous mode then backup-peer works, primary shows connected and
> backup show disconnected. If the all DLSW routers have defined peers then
> this is not true.
>
> I have not tested in a lab to see if by chance the backup funtionality still
> works though. I have been wondering and I plan on testing it this week. I am
> wondering if all DLSW router peers are defined and you still have
> backup-peer configured if the circuits would function the same.
>
> R2------R3
> | |
> R4 |
> |-------Host
>
> All routers have peers defined. R2 would show both R3 and R4 in Connect
> state. If R3 was primary and R4 was backup. Would hosts build circuits
> through R3 and if R3 lost connectivity to R2 would those cirucuits get torn
> down in R2 with the ability to rebuild through R4. I would guess yes, but
> what I would be interested to see, is if R3 came back online any new
> sessions would establish through R3. I am doubting it. I think "cost" is
> what should be used with all peers are defined and backup-peer should be
> used on promiscuous setups.
>
> MP
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul" <p_chopin@yahoo.com>
> To: "elping" <elpingu@acedsl.com>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 11:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Dlsw backup peer
>
> > 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