From: Emmanuel Oppong (e-oppong@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jun 27 2002 - 22:20:55 GMT-3
Thanks, Fred. Actually there is a 3rd router as border peer. I didn't want
to make this a long scenario and forgot to convert my config from
peer-on-demand to prom-peer, in this truncated scenario. Anyway, you
answered my question: so I don't have to bitswap the mac address in r1
filter, in this case. But if I wanted the hosts on r1 to communicate with
hosts on r2, then I would probably config SR/TLB and use the "bridge x
bitswap-layer-addresses" on r1, I suppose?
This is a scenario from another vendor lab. Looks like they stole your mac
or may be a coicidence (:
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: fingham@cox.net [mailto:fingham@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 5:38 PM
To: Emmanuel Oppong; ccielab@groupstudy.com; fningham@att.net
Subject: Re: Bitswapping and Mac Filtering
Emmanuel: What you have shouldn't do anything. There are some fundamental
errors if I understand your description correctly:
First, if you have r1 and r2 as dlsw peers, i.e., no border peer, then on
r1 you want the filter applied to the dlsw prom-peer defaults command not
the dlsw peer-on-demand-defaults. You would only use the prom-peer command
when you have a border and r1 and r2 are not configured as peers. For your
configuration to work as shown you would have a remote-peer statement on r2
pointing to r1.
Second, you have converted a non-canonical address to a canonical
address. The token-ring address is already in non-canonical format and
should not be changed. (As an aside, the MAC address you are using belongs
to one of our PC's in the NMC course).
Cheers, Fred
>
> From: "Emmanuel Oppong" <e-oppong@attbi.com>
> Date: 2002/06/27 Thu PM 05:01:01 EDT
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Subject: Bitswapping and Mac Filtering
>
> Guys/gals
>
> I need your help on this one:
>
> r1 and r2 are configured as dlsw peers. r1 has a host on e0 network. r2
> has host-1 and host-2
> on its to0 network. I want r1's host to communicate with only host-1 on
r2.
> MAC addresses for
> the hosts area :
>
> r1 host = 0000-8616-3F04
> r2 host-1 = 0000-F669-5EE7
> r2 host-2 = 0000-F669-5F25
>
> My relevant config for r1 are:
>
> r1:
> dlsw local-peer peer-id 172.16.101.1 promiscuous
> dlsw peer-on-demand-defaults dmac-output-list 700
> dlsw bridge-group 1
> !
> access-list 700 permit 0000.6F96.7AE7 0000.0000.0000
> !
> int e0
> bridge-group 1
> !
> bridge 1 protocol ieee
> !
>
> My questions are:
> I have bitswapped the mac address of host-1 in the access-list. Is that
the
> right thing to do,
> convert r2 host-1 from non-canonical to canonical? Even if it is right,
how
> does r1 associate
> these 2 mac addresses? I am thinking that r1 receives a frame from r2
with
> host-1 source mac address
> in the noncanonical form, right? But how does r1 know that the canonical
> form in the access-list
> matches the host-1 source mac address coming from r2? Can someone explain
> this?
>
> What is the right way to configure thsi scenario?
>
> Thanks.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:43 GMT-3