From: John White (jan_white7@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jul 09 2002 - 00:11:47 GMT-3
I always thought that in case like this (2 routers attached to the same
ring) I have to configure 1 TrBRF and 2 separate TrCRFs .
I'm getting really confused now. Does it mean that I only need 1 TrBRF and 1
TrCRF?
Jan
>From: "Fred Ingham" <fingham@cox.net>
>To: "John White" <jan_white7@hotmail.com>,<harish.dv@peakxv.net>
>CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: Re: Ring numbers in SRB
>Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:41:13 -0400
>
>Jan:
>1. This is normal behavior for the switch. Two TrCRF's assigned to the
>same TrBRF cannot have the same ring number.
>
>2. If you have two routers on the same ring assign both router ports to
>the
>same TrCRF. Why do you configure a second TrCRF?
>
>Cheers, Fred
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John White" <jan_white7@hotmail.com>
>To: <harish.dv@peakxv.net>
>Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 5:04 PM
>Subject: Re: Ring numbers in SRB
>
>
> > I'm not sure if I make myself clear. I assigned the same TrBRF and 2
> > diffrent TrCRFs to 2 rotuters,and then I tried to assing the same ring
> > number to TrCRFs, when I got en error message saying that ring # has
>been
> > already allocated.
> > So the questions is -Was I doing something wrong or this is normal
>behaviour
> > for switch. What am I driving at is if we have diagram with 2 routers
> > attached to the same ring(lets say 200), does it mean we need actually 2
> > different # 200 and 201 to implement this on the TR Switch.?
> > Jan
> > clipped <<
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:22 GMT-3