From: Jim Brown (Jim.Brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Aug 21 2002 - 19:47:19 GMT-3
I think the IPX frame mapping problem is because of inverse arp on the frame
interfaces. A couple of times I was banging against my lab in hasty
preparation before my last attempt and saw this behavior.
Even though I had disabled inverse arp, the IPX addressees were dynamically
mapped. I have no explanation and I'm pretty sure it wasn't based on
interface configuration order.
Issue the show frame-relay map command and see how it knows about the other
end, dynamic or static.
To correct the problem, shut down the interface, clear the frame in-arp, and
place the static maps.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted McDermott [mailto:tedmcdermott@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 4:15 PM
To: Bezverkhi, Serguei; Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE)
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Solie Enchilada"
That one stumped me, too! I don't see how Solie's
solution works. It looks like he simply enabled cgmp
on the ethernet port of the R1 router. How would that
auto-enable cgmp on the Cat5 (which is disabled by
default)?
One more question on Enchilada. When does frame-relay
mapping need to be set up for IPX? I didn't enable it
and I could see all of the IPX networks. But the Solie
solution shows specific IPX frame-relay map
statements. When I tried to add them, it said:
r2(config-if)#frame map ipx 155101.00e0.1ebb.c22a 201
broadcast
%Address already in map.
Thanks,
Ted
--- "Bezverkhi, Serguei" <Serguei.Bezverkhi@hp.com>
wrote:
> It is CGMP support.
>
> Serguei
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE)
> [mailto:dmitry_volkov@ca.ml.com]
> Sent: August 21, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: Solie Enchilada"
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Can someone explain me what does it mean:
>
> 4. Configure R1, R2 and R5 to dynamically configure
> the Cat5K for
> multicast ???"
>
> Solie page 1167 "The Enchilada" Lab
>
>
> Dmitry
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:32 GMT-3