From: George Spahl (g.spahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 16:14:07 GMT-3
Charles,
I hope by continuing this thread that we will draw out a DLSW guru to
add his or her comments or perhaps correct what I have said.
I believe that by adding the passive statement to the local peer command
(I think that's the only place it can be added) you prevent that router
from initiating any connections to its configured remote peers. So it
seems like it is an all or nothing proposition. If you had a one
hundred remote peer statements you wouldn't be able to initiate a
connection to any of them if you add the passive keyword to your local
peer statement. Seems like it would have made more sense for the
passive keyword to be added on to the remote-peer statement. That way
you could initiate connections selectively. At least this is how I
think it works but would like to hear from others who know better.
George
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Carley, Charles
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 8:27 AM
To: 'Michael Popovich'; Paul; elping
Cc: CCIE GROUPSTUDY
Subject: RE: Dlsw backup peer
I see the use of the "promiscuous" command documented well, what is the
difference with the "passive" command used in the same context.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Popovich [mailto:m.popovich@mchsi.com]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 12:48 AM
To: Paul; elping
Cc: CCIE GROUPSTUDY
Subject: Re: Dlsw backup peer
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 - 08:12:35 GMT-3