From: Jason Sinclair (sinclairj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Aug 22 2002 - 21:04:13 GMT-3
Raj,
The simple answer is that the sample is wrong. When pass-thru is configured
the traffic is NOT locally acknowledged and hence DLSW is the transport.
When the pass-thru is not configured, you must map the llc2 to the DLCI.
This is due to the fact that the traffic being locally acknowledged is then
encapsulated in LLC2 to ensure reliable delivery. Your logic and
understanding of DLSW encaps methods and techniques is correct, the example
is simply wrong.
Regards,
Jason Sinclair CCIE #9100
Manager, Network Control Centre
POWERTEL
55 Clarence Street,
SYDNEY NSW 2000
AUSTRALIA
office: + 61 2 8264 3820
mobile: + 61 416 105 858
email: sinclairj@powertel.com.au
-----Original Message-----
From: Raj [mailto:raj.bahad@totalise.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2002 20:35
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: DLSW problem - direct vs dlswlite
Hi Group,
According to the DLSW+ configuration guide, when configuring direct
encapsulation, the 'passthru' option must be configured so that the router
does not locally acknowledge dlsw traffic. Also the 'frame-relay map'
statement should use the 'dlsw' keyword instead of the 'llc2' keyword.
Looking at DLSW lite configs, the remote-peer statement does not have the
'pass thru' option enabled. This is so that DLSW traffic is locally
acknowledged. I have supplied my definitions of how direct (over
frame-relay) and dlsw lite should be configured below:
Direct:
dlsw remote-peer 0 interface serial 0.1 passthru
!
interface serial 0
frame-relay map dlsw 33
DLSW Lite:
dlsw remote-peer 0 interface serial 0.1
!
interface serial 0
frame-relay map llc2 33
Now the part that has me stumped...the following config was taken from cco:
Direct encapsulation over frame-relay:
dlsw remote-peer 0 interface serial 0.1 passthru
!
interface serial 0
frame-relay map llc2 33
Why has the frame-relay map statement have llc2 instead of dlsw. By
definition, direct encapsulation does not support local acknowledgements.
Does not this inclusion of llc2 negate the underlying direct encapsulation
requirement (not able to locally acknowledge dlsw traffic)?
The point I'm trying to make is that even if the pass thru option has been
included in the remote-peer statement, surely by using the 'llc2' keyword in
the map statement, the router ends up locally acknowledging dlsw traffic.
Please help as I'm getting confused on whether to use the 'dlsw' or 'llc2'
parameter in the frame-relay map statement for direct encapsulation over
frame-relay.
Thanks in advance,
Raj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:34 GMT-3