From: Chris Hugo (chrishugo@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Sep 14 2002 - 22:38:52 GMT-3
Thank you for the info Dmitry. I guess the deny any any log function proves handy when these vendors decide not to abide by the IETF standard :)
thanx,
chris hugo
"Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE)" wrote:Chris, Probably in the Lab TCP port 2067 is unnesessary..., but, since Cisco router can interoperate with other vendor's router which will support DLSW v.2,port 2067 can play his role there. What I'm not sure - if there will be only one TCP session with dest port 2067 ot two sessions: one with 2067 and another with 2065 RFC 2166 describes DLSW v2.0 connection setup http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2166.html :6.2.1.1 TCP Port Numbers
DLSws implementing these enhancements will use a TCP destination port
of 2067 (as opposed to RFC 1795 which uses 2065) for single session
TCP connections. The source port will be a random port number using
the established TCP norms which exclude the possibility of either
2065 or 2067.
6.2.1.2 TCP Connection Setup
DLSw peers implementing these enhancements will establish a single
session TCP connection whenever the associated peer is known to
support this capability. To do this, the initiating DLSw simply
sends a TCP setup request to destination port 2067. The receiving
DLSw responds accordingly and the TCP three way handshake ensues.
Once this handshake has completed, each DLSw is notified and the DLSw
capabilities exchange ensues. As in RFC 1795, no flows may take
place until the capabilities exchange completes.
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ibsw/ibdlsw/tech/dls26_rg.htm :
Q. Can a DLSw+ router interoperate with another router that supports the DLSw Version 2 standard?
A. Cisco support for the DLSw Version 2 standard is fully RFC 2166 compliant as specified by AIW. The only purpose for Cisco DLSw Version 2 support is to allow Cisco routers to interoperate with other non-Cisco routers that are fully compliant with the DLSw RFC standards only (1795 and 2166). Cisco DLSw+ should always be used when there are Cisco routers on both ends of a DLSw peer connection.
Dmitry
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Hugo [mailto:chrishugo@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 8:57 PM
To: Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE); 'Nick Shah'; warren perrett
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: queue list for DLSW (search - just GREAT !!!)
TCP 2067 Is not needed Dmitry. Which causes confusion on me sometimes also when I'm trying to memorize all of these bloody ports. Because this is a TCP connection we have to look at it a little differently The Write port is 2067 but when it sends to another host (router) the destination port is 2065. Yes this is the read port on the remote host. Therefore we should only look out for 2065 (Destination Port. I am not sure if the routers ever randomize the source port. I never sniffed with the intent to look at the source port. I can tell you that I have went to some scenarios that I had access-lists on some interfaces and the only allow statement that I needed to create was to allow port 2065 comming in and it worked just fine.
access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq 2065
I did not talk about priority but my same theory applys on these ports also if you have priority enabled.
hth,
chris hugo
"Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE)" wrote: yes Nick,
Agree, probably it would be cleaner not to put 1981-83.
Well, will it be correct method to put TCP 2067 as well by either way ?
for normal dlsw (without priority) I would configure:
queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp 2065
queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp 2067
Dmitry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Shah [mailto:nshah@connect.com.au]
> Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 6:25 PM
> To: warren perrett; dmitry_volkov@ca.ml.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: queue list for DLSW (search - just GREAT !!!)
>
>
>
> * priority dlsw uses 1981, 1982, 1983, 2065, so either
> Dmitry's method or
> Warren's method can be implemented to include them
>
> * A correct method is 'not' to use 1981, 1982, 1983 in
> 'non-priority' DLSW,
> imho, they will b! e considered wrong.
>
> rgds
> Nick
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warren perrett
> To: ;
> Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 10:22 PM
> Subject: Re: queue list for DLSW (search - just GREAT !!!)
>
>
> > There seems to be two ways to tie the ports to a queue the
> way you have
> > below or :
> >
> >
> >
> > (config)#queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp 2065
> >
> > (config)#queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp 2067
> >
> > Have a look at the text when you issue a ? after the ip 1 see below
> >
> > (config)#queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 ?
> >
> >
> >
> > tcp Prioritize TCP packets 'to' or 'from' the specified port
> >
> > udp Prioritize UDP packets 'to' or 'from' the specified ! port
> >
> > As it says here 'to' or 'from' the port, I think either way
> is valid , as
> > usual the qestion is which way is the cisco way :)
> >
> > My SNA notes refer to the method above
> >
> > I would agree your ACL covers all DLSW ports inc 1981,1982,
> and 1983 if
> > you issuse the priority command. If you don't issue the
> priority command
> > only 2065 is used , but should you inc 1981,1982,1983 for
> completeness ?
> >
> > On one hand it would do no harm but on the other the
> examiners may feel
> > your just guessing . What should you do ? I don't know I'm afraid.
> >
> > In that instance I would have to ask the proctor and
> explain my thoughts.
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE)" >Reply-To: "Volkov, Dmitry
> > (Toronto - BCE)! " >To: "'ccielab@groupstudy.com'" >Subject:
> queue list for
> > DLSW (search - just GREAT !!!) >Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002
> 17:33:03 -0400 >
> > >Some time ago Sasa Milic posted about "protocol dlsw" in
> "queue-list 1
> > >protocol dlsw"
> > >http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200205/msg01804.html
> > >"protocol dlsw" can be used only with FST encapsulation. -
> Can somebody
> > else >confirm that ?! >If you use TCP, then you have to use
> access-list
> > to identify port(s) > >What is the common opinion with you:
> > >Will this
> > access list cover all TCP DLSW (including priority) ? " >
> >access-list
> > 100 permit tcp any eq 2065 any >access-list 100 permit tcp
> any any eq
> > 2065 >access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq 2067
> >access-list 100 permit
&g! t; > tcp any any eq 1981 >access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq 1982
> > >access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq 1983 > >Thanks, > >Dmitry
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:52 GMT-3