From: Raj Bahad (raj.bahad@totalise.co.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 23 2002 - 10:58:46 GMT-3
Lee,
Your method of leaving inverse-arp on is the suitable way of configuring hub
and spoke topologies. Apart from the obvious reduction in administration, it
also leans towards a more scalable solution as all you would really have to do
is configure the remote end!
However, It is better to know the other recommended method of creating
frame-relay map statements on all nodes, including the hub! This will reduce
and possible errors by not relying on Inarp to resolve all those remote sites,
especially after a reboot.
Raj.
#10256
>===== Original Message From Hunt Lee <ciscoforme3@yahoo.com.au> =====
>Hello,
>
>I have to subj fo clarification:
>
>In a hub & spoke environment, I have read on many books & other
>resources stating to use "frame-relay map ip <x.x.x.x> <DLCI no> to map
>the appropriate IP address to its corresponding DLCI on the FR routers.
>
>While I understand that this is a MUST for Spoke routers (since the
>Inverse ARP only works on directly connected links)
>
>e.g. On Spoke routers,
>
>interface Serial0
> ip address 172.16.2.2 255.255.255.0
> encapsulation frame-relay
> ip ospf priority 0
> no fair-queue
> clockrate 64000
> frame-relay map ip 172.16.2.3 600 broadcast
> frame-relay map ip 172.16.2.4 600 broadcast
> frame-relay map ip 172.16.2.1 600 broadcast
> no frame-relay inverse-arp
>
>... but on the Hub, wouldn't it make more sense just to stay with
>Inverse ARP by "frame-relay inverse-arp" , since the Hub will need to
>have physical direct connections to all the Spokes anyway??
>
>e.g. On Hub,
>
>interface Serial0
> ip address 172.16.2.1 255.255.255.0
> encapsulation frame-relay
> frame-relay inverse-arp
>
>Please add something or disprove if i'm wrong.
>
>Thank You,
>
>L.
>
>http://careers.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Careers
>- 1,000's of jobs waiting online for you!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:35:54 GMT-3