From: Harish DV/peakxv (harish.dv@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Jul 10 2002 - 21:32:14 GMT-3
Yes. Thats what I would do.
"Anthony Pace"
<anthonypace@fast To: "Harish DV/peakxv" <ha
rish.dv@peakxv.net>, "John White"
mail.fm> <jan_white7@hotmail.com>
cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
, fingham@cox.net, nobody@groupstudy.com
07/10/2002 05:11 Subject: Re: Ring numbers in SR
B
PM
Please respond to
"Anthony Pace"
Harish,
In these labs where the token rings are supposed to be separated by the
"WAN", but are plugged into the same 3920, would it be correct to give
each port its own CRF ane BRF combonation since no connectivty between
the rings should be occuring in the 3920?
Anthony Pace
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:13:25 -0700, "Harish DV/peakxv"
<harish.dv@peakxv.net> said:
> Jan,
>
> Here are the rules:
>
> 1. If you need to put 2 ports under same ring, Create a TrBrf, TrCrf
> and
> put both ports under that TrCrf.
>
>
> 2. If you need to create 2 seperate rings and bridge between them, One
> TrBrf with 2 TrCrf and each port in different Crf.
>
>
> 3. If you want to isolate 2 rings totally from each other, create 2
> TrBrf
> and have Crfs and ports under each
>
>
> HTH
>
>
> Harish
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "John White"
> <jan_white7@hotma To:
> fingham@cox.net
> il.com> cc:
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Sent by: Subject: Re: Ring
> numbers in SRB
> nobody@groupstudy
> .com
>
>
> 07/08/2002 08:11
> PM
> Please respond to
> "John White"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 - 19:36:25 GMT-3