From: Paul (p_chopin@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 02:57:51 GMT-3
I just came back from short walk. So, are we closer to
any conclusions? Which connection R1(I'm speaking here
about my setup) is going to use? Maybe we should use
somthing else here ?
The other lab requirement is , to setup R2 and R4 such
that all new connections choose R4 as prefer peer.I
guess the cost parameter would be used here to
influence the choice.
Thanks guys for participation.
Paul
--- Michael Popovich <m.popovich@mchsi.com> wrote:
> This is what I get when R5 and R6 are configured
> from promiscuous mode:
>
> r1#sh dlsw peers
> Peers: state pkts_rx pkts_tx
> type drops ckts TCP
> uptime
> TCP 192.168.10.6 CONNECT 2 2
> conf 0 0 0
> 00:00:03
> TCP 192.168.10.5 DISCONN 0 0
> conf 0
> - -
> Total number of connected peers: 1
> Total number of connections: 1
>
>
> ----- 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