From: Denise Donohue (fradendon@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 08:31:12 GMT-3
Try putting the keyword "passive" on the spoke that should be used as the
backup.
I think what's happening is that the backup peer is initiating the
connection to the hub peer, since you have them explicitly configured.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul" <p_chopin@yahoo.com>
To: "Michael Popovich" <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 1:57 AM
Subject: Re: Dlsw backup peer
> 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