no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer

From: Scott Livingston (scottl@sprinthosting.net)
Date: Tue Nov 19 2002 - 18:14:31 GMT-3

• Next message: Gene_Thorne@doh.state.fl.us: "RE: Cat3550 XL to Cat3550 EMI?"
• Previous message: Tim Fletcher: "Re: Lost packet in traceroute"
• Next in thread: Gary Lileikis: "RE: no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer"
• Maybe reply: Gary Lileikis: "RE: no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer"
• Maybe reply: Scott Livingston: "RE: no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer"
• Maybe reply: Robert Massiache: "Re: no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer"
• Maybe reply: Scott Livingston: "RE: no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer"
• Maybe reply: Jay Greenberg: "RE: no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer"
• Maybe reply: Jay Greenberg: "Re: no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

HMMMMMM?
 
So I am working the FatKid.com lab '441 Advanced DLSw' and I am looking
at #6. The solution used was 'inactivity' and I used 'no-llc' for the
dynamic option. So the question I have is; when do I use no-llc vs
inactivity?
 
Thank You!
Scott

• Next message: Gene_Thorne@doh.state.fl.us: "RE: Cat3550 XL to Cat3550 EMI?"
• Previous message: Tim Fletcher: "Re: Lost packet in traceroute"
• Next in thread: Gary Lileikis: "RE: no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer"
• Maybe reply: Gary Lileikis: "RE: no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer"
• Maybe reply: Scott Livingston: "RE: no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer"
• Maybe reply: Robert Massiache: "Re: no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer"
• Maybe reply: Scott Livingston: "RE: no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer"
• Maybe reply: Jay Greenberg: "RE: no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer"
• Maybe reply: Jay Greenberg: "Re: no-llc vs inactivity dlsw dynamic peer"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 07:23:06 GMT-3