From: Paul (p_chopin@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 16:35:21 GMT-3
I've just tested passive command in my lab.Cisco IOS
allows you to put this statement either on local
peer-id or remote peer-id.In case you put on local
peer-id
then router won't iniciate any connections to
configred
remote peers.It does work.
Paul
--- George Spahl <g.spahl@insightbb.com> wrote:
> 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