From: Chris Home (clarson52@comcast.net)
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 20:41:45 GMT-3
The rule that goes around says always non-canonical with dlsw. I am not
sure, but I would say no, you wouldn't bit swap the already non-canonical
token ring mac. I have my doubts of course because of it working both ways.
Also, I don't think the bit-swapping operation you did is correct. Maybe you
just didn't want to finish it out ? I get 0200.080A.0880.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ram Shummoogum" <rshummoo@ca.ibm.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 5:41 PM
Subject: DLSW bitswap-confusion
> Hi Experts:
>
>
> E0-----RA--(dlsw)---RB----TR0
>
> My host is at TR0 with mac 400010501001
> My PU is at E0 ( I have bit-swapped 400010501001 to 0200.0800.0000)
>
> I have an output filter on E0 that will permit the host.
>
> I am running 120.0.21 and my filter is like that:
>
> access-list 1101 permit 0200.0800.0000 0000.00ff.ffff 0000.0000.0000
> ffff.ffff.ffff
>
> with the above config everything works fine as shown in the show dlsw
peers
> or circuits etc....
>
>
>
> My problem is that When I use version 12.1.17 I have to change my ACL to
> the followign to get the same results.
>
> access-list 1101 permit 4000.1000.0000 0000.00ff.ffff 0000.0000.0000 ff
> ff.ffff.ffff
>
>
> One of them must have a bug and the Big ? is which one.
>
> should I bitswapped or not??
>
>
> regards,
> RAM-514-205-6612
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 17:21:43 GMT-3