From: Nathan Chessin (nchessin@cisco.com)
Date: Wed Dec 04 2002 - 04:53:38 GMT-3
Something to note also, there is no "dlsw icannotreach" command for mac
addresses, only for saps.
Nate
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> MOLINA, MARTIN J (PBI)
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:32 PM
> To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: DLSW ICANREACH/ICANNOTREACH Bit swapping/ Solution I'm going
> with
>
>
> Hello,
> About 33% of the responses suggested bit swapping, 33%
> suggested no bit
> swapping and 33% suggested something in between. I set up a DLSW peer
> between 2 routers. I used a sample config from
> www.6colabs.com where you can
> use 2 routers on both sides of your peering to establish an
> actual DLSW
> circuit (pretty cool) and I discovered what 33% of the people
> who responded
> already knew. The sh dlsw reachability mac addresses for the hosts are
> indeed bit swapped as they traverse the DLSW peering.
> Therefore, I will be
> bit-swapping mac addresses for my DLSW ICANREACH/ICANNOTREACH
> statements in
> the future based on this test. It makes sense that proper
> filtering relies
> on using a format that the DLSW peer understands. Can you get
> away with not
> bit-swapping? I don't know but I will be bit-swapping until I
> hear a solid
> argument on why you wouldn't have to. Thanks for your responses.
>
> Martin Molina
> Senior Network Engineer
> SBC (Pacific Bell) Internet Services
> CCNP CCDP
> desk: (925) 973-7774
> cell: (925) 216-5299
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 17:21:38 GMT-3