From: Michael Popovich (m.popovich@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 02:39:17 GMT-3
This is how I have mine setup.
I see both in connect state.
R1---Ethernet-----R2
| \
TR Frame-relay
/ \
R5 R6
|--Ethernet--|
R1 has R5 and R6 defined as peers with R5 as the backup-peer.
R6 and R5 each have R1 as their peer.
Configs:
R1:
source-bridge ring-group 1000
dlsw local-peer peer-id 192.168.1.1
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 192.168.10.6
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 192.168.10.5 backup-peer 192.168.10.6
R5:
dlsw local-peer peer-id 192.168.10.5
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 192.168.1.1
dlsw bridge-group 1
R6:
dlsw local-peer peer-id 192.168.10.6
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 192.168.1.1
dlsw bridge-group 1
"show dlsw peers"
R6:
r6#sh dlsw peers
Peers: state pkts_rx pkts_tx type drops ckts TCP
uptime
TCP 192.168.1.1 CONNECT 11 12 conf 0 0 0
00:04:46
Total number of connected peers: 1
Total number of connections: 1
R5:
r5#sh dlsw peers
Peers: state pkts_rx pkts_tx type drops ckts TCP
uptime
TCP 192.168.1.1 CONNECT 11 12 conf 0 0 0
00:05:00
Total number of connected peers: 1
Total number of connections: 1
R1:
r1#sh dlsw peers
Peers: state pkts_rx pkts_tx type drops ckts TCP
uptime
TCP 192.168.10.6 CONNECT 13 12 conf 0 0 0
00:05:29
TCP 192.168.10.5 CONNECT 13 12 conf 0 0 0
00:05:14
Total number of connected peers: 2
Total number of connections: 2
----- Original Message -----
From: "elping" <elpingu@acedsl.com>
To: "Michael Popovich" <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
Cc: "Paul" <p_chopin@yahoo.com>; "CCIE GROUPSTUDY" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: Dlsw backup peer
> 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