From: Brian McGahan (brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jun 20 2002 - 02:02:06 GMT-3
Just thought I should throw this in here. Try this link, it's
everything you've always wanted to know about DLSw+ but were afraid to
ask. ;)
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/697/index.shtml
For those of you who can't access the link directly, goto the tac page
at:
and search for:
"Cisco - Data-Link Switching (DLSw) Index Page"
It should be the first link.
HTH
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
Director of Design and Implementation
brian@cyscoexpert.com
CyscoExpert Corporation
Internetwork Consulting & Training
http://www.cyscoexpert.com
Voice: 847.674.3392
Fax: 847.674.2625
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Paul
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 11:36 PM
To: Anthony Pace
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Dlsw backup peer
I believe all the peers in a group must have
promiscuous word configered explicitly in order to
become demand-peer
Paul
--- Anthony Pace <anthonypace@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I have another question in vein of this thread. What
> is the distinction
> of a "demand-peer"? Aren't they all demand peers if
> you create a
> hierarchy of border peers and groups who have an
> indirect connection to
> all the other routers in all other groups. Do you
> need to "denote" this
> any where or is it "autoconfigured" whenever you
> create this kind of
> hierarchy?
>
> Anthony Pace
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:35:21 -0700 (PDT), "Paul"
> <p_chopin@yahoo.com>
> said:
> > 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
>
=== message truncated ===
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:38 GMT-3