From: Anthony Pace (anthonypace@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:53:28 GMT-3
I put an ACL in between 2 peers. I saw tcp(2065) and udp(2067). I
think. Does that sound correct? WOuld this be the setup or also for
data?
Anthony PAce
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:30:27 -0400, "Eyad Bajes"
<eyadbajes@hotmail.com> said:
> This message only has an HTML part -- this is a text generated
> representation
>
>
> I think port 2067 is a TCP read port and port 2065 is a write
> TCP
> port. Not a 100% possitive though.
>
> Eyad
> >From: "George Spahl"
> >Reply-To: "George Spahl"
> >To: "'Carlos G Mendioroz'" ,
> >CC: , , , , , ,
>
> >Subject: RE: What are all the ports for DLSw+ ?
>
> >Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:21:44 -0400
>
> >
>
> >Carlos,
>
> >Would you mind elaborating on that port 2067? I recently had a
> problem
>
> >where it seemed that my border peer was hammering it's peer group
> with
>
> >packets sent to source port 0, dest port 2067. It would repeatedly
> send
>
> >a 219 byte packet and the peers would reply to it. I have no idea
> what
>
> >was going on but when I removed the peer group it all stopped. Any
>
> >ideas what 2067 is used for?
>
> >Thanks,
>
> >George
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >-----Original Message-----
>
> >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
>
> >Carlos G Mendioroz
>
> >Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 8:13 AM
>
> >To: steven.j.nelson@bt.com
>
> >Cc: harish.dv@peakxv.net; Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com;
>
> >anthonypace@fastmail.fm; ccielab@groupstudy.com; elpingu@acedsl.com;
>
> >nobody@groupstudy.com; tr@contract.hu
>
> >Subject: Re: What are all the ports for DLSw+ ?
>
> >
>
> >Just to add to the mess, remember that DLSW+ is not DLSW.
>
> >And DLSWv2 uses 2067, not 2065.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >steven.j.nelson@bt.com wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > No it's not....
>
> > >
>
> > > When using priority keyword it's
>
> > >
>
> > > 2065 high
>
> > > 1981 medium
>
> > > 1982 normal
>
> > > 1983 low
>
> > >
>
> > > Steve
>
> > >
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > > From: Harish DV/peakxv [mailto:harish.dv@peakxv.net]
>
> > > Sent: 20 June 2002 10:20
>
> > > To: McCallum, Robert
>
> > > Cc: Anthony Pace; ccielab@groupstudy.com; 'elping';
>
> > > nobody@groupstudy.com; tr@contract.hu
>
> > > Subject: RE: What are all the ports for DLSw+ ?
>
> > >
>
> > > Hi..
>
> > >
>
> > > Its 1981/1982/1983 (medium/normal/high priporities respectively).
>
> > > where did you see 1984?.
>
> > >
>
> > > Harish
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > "McCallum, Robert"
>
> > >
>
> > > >"'elping'"
>
> > > , Anthony Pace
>
> > > e-thus.com> cc:
>
> > > tr@contract.hu, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>
> > >
>
> > > Sent by: Subject: RE:
>
> >What
>
> > > are all the ports for DLSw+ ?
>
> > > nobody@groupstudy.com
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > 06/20/2002 01:25 AM
>
> > >
>
> > > Please respond to
>
> > >
>
> > > "McCallum, Robert"
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Folks,
>
> > >
>
> > > The default port number used by DLSW is 2065. If you specify the
>
> >keyword
>
> > > priority in the DLSW peer statement then this opens up 1982, 1982,
>
> >1983 and
>
> > > 1984. If there is no priority keyword and you specify in an
>
> >access-list
>
> > > any other number other than 2065 I would say - if this was in an
> exam
>
> >like
>
> > > -
>
> > > that you were 100% wrong.
>
> > >
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > > From: elping [mailto:elpingu@acedsl.com]
>
> > > Sent: 20 June 2002 06:40
>
> > > To: Anthony Pace
>
> > > Cc: tr@contract.hu; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>
> > > Subject: Re: What are all the ports for DLSw+ ?
>
> > >
>
> > > ok without looking
>
> > > 1981
>
> > > 1982
>
> > > 2065
>
> > > 2067
>
> > >
>
> > > let's see if i am getting rusty
>
> > >
>
> > > Anthony Pace wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > I see tcp(2065) and udp(2067) hitting my ACL but I imagine this
> is
>
> >just
>
> > > > to set up the peers. If traffic were passing through a circuit
> does
>
> >it
>
> > > > use tcp(1981-83). Does it use different ports for SNA versus
>
> >NetBios?
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Does FST use prot-id 91 for every thing?
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Anthony Pace
>
> > > >
>
> > > > On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 19:35:14 +0200 (CEST), tr@contract.hu said:
>
> > > > > more detailed at:
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > >
>
> >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ibsw/ibdlsw/prodlit/dlsw5_rg.h
> tm
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Quoting Carlos G Mendioroz :
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > > You'have to use priority in dlsw+ to separate 4 queues,
>
> > > > > > and use SAP ACLs to separate netbios from SNA into
>
> > > > > > different TCP ports (2065/1981/1982/1983).
>
> > > > > > Finally, use CQ to separate IPX, and 2 dlsw+ ports...
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > "Hung, Sing-Yu" wrote:
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > Dear,
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > Can Someone tell me how to do dlsw traffic queueing as
>
> > > > > > below?
>
> > > > > > > SNA 50%(packet size 1024)
>
> > > > > > > IPX 25%(packet size 512)
>
> > > > > > > netbios 25%(packet size 256)
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > I don't know how to define netbios and ipx under
> queue-list
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > Bradford Hung
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > Pacific Century CyberWorks
>
> > > > > > >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:39 GMT-3