From: Jake (jakeczyz@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 24 2002 - 23:15:14 GMT-3
Omer,
We might be on a wild goose chase with this one, because my memory is vague
. But, No,
that's not what I was talking about. I'm specifically refering to 2 routers con
nected
over a F/R cloud with one router using a p2p subinterface and the other router
being
configured on the major (physical) interface with only one neighbor. I'll try t
o lab this
scenario out this week and I'll get back to the group if I find it. Sorry about
all the
confusion, if I have caused any. Thanks for trying to help me remember, though.
There are
plenty of more knowledgable CCIE's on this group than I, and I was hoping one o
f them
would know what I was mumbling about and put us out of our misery. ;) If not, d
on't sweat
it, it may be a hallucination - I'll shut up until I lab it out.
Thanks again,
Jake
--- omer@ansari.com wrote:
> Jake,
>
> are you referring to the fact that you have to force the Hub (which is has
> a multipoint intf) of a partial mesh to become the DR, so that all the
> spokes can form adjacencies with it?
>
> Omer
>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Jake wrote:
>
> > Wes,
> > Thanks. However, if you read my message carefully, I put in parentheses
that I
> wasn't
> > talking about the obvious network type mismatch. Shoot, if I already forgot
things
> that
> > basic after 10 weeks from passing, I'd be really worried. ;)
> >
> > Thanks anyway,
> > Jake
> > 9102
> >
> >
> > --- Wes Stevens <ccie_miami@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > If you have a point to point sub interface on one end and a physical
> > > multipoint on the other you will need to use a ip ospf network
> > > point-to-point command on the multipoint end or they will not talk - the
> > > hello times will be different. The other way to solve it is to manually
> > > change the hello times.
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: Jake <jakeczyz@yahoo.com>
> > > >Reply-To: Jake <jakeczyz@yahoo.com>
> > > >To: P729 <p729@cox.net>, Lance <Lance@advnetech.com>,
> > > >ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > >Subject: Re: Frame maps and Interface-dlci
> > > >Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 12:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
> > > >
> > > >Mas,
> > > >I could be wrong, but I recall that there was an issue with using P2P
> > > >connections between
> > > >a p2p sub on one end and a physical on the other end. As I recall, there
> > > >was a problem
> > > >establishing OSPF neighbor relationships (no, not related to the network
> > > >type) and it
> > > >required a map statement on the physical side only. I don't remember if
I
> > > >could still
> > > >ping, and very likely I'm mis-remembering this totally... but I'm sure
> > > >someone in the
> > > >group knows what I'm talking about if it exists. Please correct me if I'
m
> > > >wrong, I don't
> > > >have sufficient motivation to test this on the eqipment sitting behind m
e.
> > > >;-)
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >Jake
> > > >9102
> > > >
> > > >P.S. Is "Mas" short for Masutatsu? j/w (Used to train Kyokushin)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--- P729 <p729@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > You should use the 'frame-relay interface-dlci' command for assigning
> > > >the
> > > > > DLCI to the local end of your point-to-point "connection." 'frame-rel
ay
> > > >map'
> > > > > is used on multipoint interfaces to map destination layer 3 addresses
to
> > > > > local DLCIs. Maps aren't needed on P2P connections because there is o
nly
> > > >one
> > > > > "other end" on a P2P connection, whereas on a multipoint connection
> > > >there
> > > > > may be several and the router needs a means to know how to get where.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Mas Kato
> > > > > https://ecardfile.com/id/mkato
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Lance" <Lance@advnetech.com>
> > > > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 2:00 PM
> > > > > Subject: Frame maps and Interface-dlci
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you have a point-to-point frame connections between two routers
> > > >should
> > > > > you
> > > > > > use the frame map or the interface-dlci command?
> > > > > > From the perspecitve of the lab is one correct and the other wrong?
I
> > > > > know
> > > > > > that they both work, however there has been some discussion on the
> > > >what
> > > > > > consitutes a correct configuration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Lance
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:41 GMT-3