From: Bezverkhi, Serguei (Serguei.Bezverkhi@xxxxxx)
Date: Wed Jun 26 2002 - 21:54:54 GMT-3
This is extract from Cisco DLSw+ student manual.
"Ring list map a traffic on a local ring to remote peer. You can create
a ring list of local ring numbers and apply the list to the remote peer
definition. Traffic received from a remote peer is only forwarded to the
rings specified in the ring list. Traffic received from a local
interface is forwarded to peers if the input ring number appears in the
ring list applied to the remote peer definition...."
I consider ring list as kind of *bind*, so when I want to bind just one
ring to remote peer I would use ring-list.
"Port lists can be configured to control where broadcasts are sent. Port
lists apply to either Token-Ring or SDLC."
HTH
Serguei
-----Original Message-----
From: Ademola Osindero [mailto:osindero@lagos.sns.slb.com]
Sent: June 26, 2002 4:49 PM
To: Anthony Pace; Prakash H Somani
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: DLSW+ traffic mapping
Anthony,
I'm rather puzzled on which one to use. For instance if I am asked to
limit
traffic to a token ring interface from a remote DLSW+ peer which one
should
I use, ring-list or port-list. After all they do the same thing.
I actually had a question like this in one of my practice labs and was
puzzled to see the solution containing port-list when I had so much
expected ring-list. What difference does this make?
Regards
Ademola
At 08:09 PM 6/26/2002 +0000, Anthony Pace wrote:
>Thank you! That is what I was missing in my conception. Identical
>numbers glues the lists together into one big "wire".
>
>Thanx.
>
>Anthony Pace
>
>
>On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:46:41 +0100, "Ademola Osindero"
><osindero@lagos.sns.slb.com> said:
> > Anthony,
> >
> > There is an illustration of a mix/match in Karl Solie's book. If you
> > want a peer to have an access to an ethernet and a token-ring, you
> > create one ring-list that covers the token ring interface and a
> > bridge-list, but with
> > the same ring-list number, to include the ethernet interface. You
can
> > define the remote peer with this ring-lists number.
> >
> > For example
> >
> > bridge 1 proto ieee
> > dlsw local peer 1.1.1.1 promiscuous
> > dlsw bridge-group 1
> > dlsw bgroup-list 1 bgroup 1
> > dlsw ring-list 1 ring 1
> > dlsw remote 1 tcp 1.1.1.2
> >
> > source-bridge ring 100
> > interface e0
> > bridge-group 1
> >
> > int to 0
> > ring 16
> > source-bridge spanning
> > source-bridge 1 2 100
> >
> >
> > At 10:44 PM 6/25/2002 +0000, Anthony Pace wrote:
> > >Is there a way to mix/match them. What if I want a peer to have
> > >access to one Ethernet and one Token-Ring? What does a ring-list
> > >buy you if a port list includes TR + Serial.
> > >
> > >Anthony PAce
> > >
> > >On 25 Jun 2002 09:19:16 -0000, "Prakash H Somani"
> > ><pdsccie@rediffmail.com> said:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Port lists / Ring lists / Bridge group allow you to create
> > > > broadcast domains in a DLSw+ network. Using port lists / Ring
> > > > Lists / Bridge group, you can control where broadcasts are
> > > > forwarded.
> > > >
> > > > Ring Lists is used to define Token Rings.
> > > >
> > > > Port list is used to define Token Rings and Serial ports.
> > > >
> > > > Bridge Gorup is used to define ethernet bridge group.
> > > >
> > > > Friends correct me if I m wrong.
> > > >
> > > > regards....Prakash
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 Ademola Osindero wrote :
> > > > >Hi group,
> > > > >
> > > > >Can anyone please point out the difference between port-list,
> > > > >and ring-list/bgroup-list?
> > > > >
> > > > >Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > >Osindero Ademola
> > > > >Schlumberger Network Solutions
> > > > >Tel: 234 1 261 0446 Ext 5427
> > > > >Fax 234 1 262 1034
> > > > >email:osindero@lagos.sns.slb.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:42 GMT-3