From: Omer Ansari (omer@ansari.com)
Date: Thu Sep 19 2002 - 07:52:01 GMT-3
Prakash,
from what I've seen a promiscuous peer can only accept tcp/fst mode
encaps, where tcp is default.
i dont think a prom peer would be able to accept an incoming direct or FR
transport.
someone correct me if i'm wrong?
On 19 Sep 2002, Prakash H Somani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is one more issue also regarding this...
>
> R2 is connected to R5 on P-T-M subinterface. now at R2 I have
> configured dlsw light. (With Frame-relay <dlci> and Frame-relay
> map llc command) and on R5 i have configured promiscus...
>
> The peers are never coming up why ?
>
> regards....Prakash
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 Mingzhou Nie wrote :
> >beda,
> >
> >dlsw direct will not work on any type of subinterfaces but main
> >interface. dlsw lite will work on subinterfaces as well as main
> >interface. With p-to-p interface, no "frame map llc2 <dlci>" is
> >needed.
> >
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200204/threads.html
> >search on "DSLW direct encap --Peer disconnected"
> >
> >Ming
> >
> >--- beda jain <bpjain@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > does Dlsw lite work in frame-relay multipoint interface or
> >not.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Beda
> > >
> > > At 10:17 AM 9/17/2002 -0700, Mingzhou Nie wrote:
> > > >donny,
> > > >
> > > >this question has been asked several times in the past. I'm
> > > resending
> > > >my personal notes again.
> > > >
> > > >****
> > > >- encapsulation: watch out direct encap and llc2(dlsw lite)
> >encap.
> > > both
> > > >reference individual dlci, but the first one needs
> >"pass-thru"
> > > option
> > > >at the end and map dlci to dlsw, vs. the latter one doesn't
> >use
> > > >"pass-thru" and map dlci to llc2. direct encap only works on
> >main
> > > >interface. and direct encap doesn't work with backup peer.
> >you can
> > > not
> > > >configure ip address in "dlsw local-peer" statement.
> > >
> > >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ibsw/ibdlsw/tech/dls3_rg.htm
> > >
> > >http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/idg4/nd2007.htm#xtocid31
> > >
> > >http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200201/msg00583.html
>
> > >
> > >http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200111/msg00784.html
>
> > >
> > >http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200201/msg00945.html
>
> > > >
> > > >****
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--- Chris Hugo <chrishugo@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Remote Peer stays the same with both.Just the map
> >statements will
> > > > > differ
> > > > > frame-relay map LLC2 is "DLSW Lite" --Which has local
> > > acknowledgment
> > > > > frame-relay map DLSW is Direct Encapsulation--Which does
> >not have
> > > > > local acknowledgment
> > > > > I'm sure others will add to the post. But here is some
> >before I
> > > sleep
> > > > > :)
> > > > > chris hugo
> > > > > Donny MATEO wrote: Hi Group,
> > > > >
> > > > > I need help to clarify what is the difference between
> >these two
> > > > > configs for DLSW direct
> > > > > encapsulation :
> > > > >
> > > > > dlsw remote-peer 0 frame-relay interface serial 0
> > > > > int s0
> > > > > frame-relay map llc2 131
> > > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > >
> > > > > dlsw remote-peer 0 frame-relay interface serial 0 131
> > > > > int s0
> > > > > frame-relay map dlsw 131
> > > > >
> > > > > Solie says to use the latter for a multipoint interface. I
> >tried
> > > the
> > > > > latter, but the state seems to
> > > > > stay at disconnect. If I add the statement frame-relay map
> >llc2
> > > 131,
> > > > > then it would become connect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any clue ?
> > > > >
> > > > > tks.
> > > > > Donny
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This message is for information purposes only and its
> >content
> > > > > should not be construed as an offer, or solicitation of an
> >offer,
> > > > > to buy or sell any banking or financial instruments or
> >services
> > > > > and no representation or warranty is given in respect of
> >its
> > > > > accuracy, completeness or fairness. The material is
> >subject
> > > > > to change without notice. You should take your own
> >independent
> > > > > tax, legal and other professional advice in respect of
> >the
> > > content
> > > > > of this message. This message may contain confidential
> >or
> > > > > legally privileged material and may not be copied,
> >redistributed
> > > > > or published (in whole or in part) without our prior
> >written
> > > consent.
> > > > > This email may have been intercepted, partially
> >destroyed,
> > > > > arrive late, incomplete or contain viruses and no
> >liability is
> > > > > accepted by any member of the Credit Agricole Indosuez
> >group
> > > > > as a result. If you are not the intended recipient of
> >this
> > > message,
> > > > > please immediately notify the sender and delete this
> >message
> > > > > from your computer.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >__________________________________________________
> > > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > > >Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
> > > >http://news.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
> >http://news.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:57 GMT-3