From: Donny MATEO (donny.mateo@sg.ca-indosuez.com)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 00:14:35 GMT-3
Hi Hunt,
probably just because of the tcp windowing stuff. What sollie meant is for you to create a queue so
that the tcp packet won't get drop when the dlsw peer is being established. As far as I know POD is
on by default and you need not do anything to use it with border peer.
However if you don't like droped tcp packet, you can configure a tcp-queue-max to buffer the packet
while the circuit is being established.
might be wrong though.....;)
Donny
Hunt Lee
<ciscoforme3@yaho To: Aidan Marks <amarks@cisco.com>
o.com.au> cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent by: Subject: RE: Question RE: DLSW Peer Groups and Peer-On-Demand
nobody@groupstudy
.com
04-01-2003 06:53
Please respond to
Hunt Lee
Hi Aidan,
Yes, that makes sense. What I was wondering, however, is that whether the command
"dlsw peer-on-demand-default tcp-queue-max" is really a requirement for setting up
"Peer-On-Demand" as Solie says, whereas I can of think that as long as you have a
DLSW Peer-Groups network setup, when a router needs a connection through a DLSW+
Border peer, a POD connection will automatically be setup.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks.
Hunt
--- Aidan Marks <amarks@cisco.com> wrote: > A peer group/border peer is a
scalability enhancement...
>
> from the CCO docs...
>
> "Perhaps the most significant optimization in DLSw+ is a feature known as
> peer groups. Peer groups are designed to address the broadcast replication
> that occurs in a fully meshed network. When any-to-any communication is
> required (for example, for NetBIOS or Advanced Peer-to-Peer Networking
> [APPN] environments), RSRB or standard DLSw implementations require peer
> connections between every pair of routers. This setup is not only difficult
> to configure, but it results in branch access routers having to replicate
> search requests for each peer connection. This setup wastes bandwidth and
> router cycles. A better concept is to group routers into clusters and
> designate a focal router to be responsible for broadcast replication. This
> capability is included in DLSw+."
>
> and peer on demand...
>
> "A peer-on-demand peer is a non-configured remote-peer that was connected
> because of an LLC2 session established through a border peer DLSw+ network.
> On-demand peers greatly reduce the number of peers that must be configured.
> You can use on-demand peers to establish an end-to-end circuit even though
> the DLSw+ routers servicing the end systems have no specific configuration
> information about the peers. This configuration permits casual, any-to-any
> connection without the burden of configuring the connection in advance. It
> also allows any-to-any switching in large internetworks where persistent
> TCP connections would not be possible."
>
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fibm_c/bcfpart2/bcfdlsw.htm
>
> Make sense?
>
> Aidan
>
> At 02:51 PM 3/01/2003, Hunt Lee wrote:
>
> >Hey Tim,
> >
> >How did your testing go. Did you managed to find out what is the difference
> >between DLSW Peer Groups & Peer-on-demand? I am still very confused whether
> >there is any difference between the two.
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Hunt Lee
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ouellette, Tim [mailto:tim.ouellette@eds.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, 1 January 2003 6:46 PM
> >To: 'Hunt Lee'
> >Cc: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> >Subject: RE: Question RE: DLSW Peer Groups and Peer-On-Demand
> >
> >
> >Hunt,
> >
> >I think based on the fact that you used the promiscious that you are
> >basically doing the same as PoD.
> >
> >This is also shown in your "sh dlsw peer" for RTC
> >
> > TCP 5.5.5.5 CONNECT 523 532 pod 0 1 0
> >00:12:35
> >
> >I was wondering also if the POD and the promiscious basically did the same
> >thing but I think the promiscious just allows a connection from anywhere,
> >whereas the POD default allows a session from another router that is
> >connected to a peer of your border peer. If that makes sense. I'll try and
> >test tonight.
> >
> >Tim
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Hunt Lee [mailto:ciscoforme3@yahoo.com.au]
> >Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 2:55 AM
> >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Question RE: DLSW Peer Groups and Peer-On-Demand
> >
> >
> >Hi
> >
> >Happy Holiday to all.
> >
> >I have some question that I would like to ask the group regarding DLSW Peer
> >Groups
> >and Peer-On-Demand.
> >
> >I have a home lab where the topology is as follows:
> >
> >RTA & RTC are DLSW Border Peers, while the others are DLSW Remote Peers
> >
> >SNA PU2 -- RTE ------- RTA --- RTC --- SNA PU5
> > | |
> > RTB RTD
> >
> >
> >
> >According to Solie, one needs to use "dlsw peer-on-demand-default
> >tcp-queue-max"
> >command to setup Peer-On-Demand. However, on my setup above, I didn't use
> >it at
> >all, yet I still gets the POD Peer establiahsed.
> >
> >RTC#sh dlsw peer
> >Peers: state pkts_rx pkts_tx type drops ckts TCP
> >uptime
> > TCP 1.1.1.1 CONNECT 344 342 prom 0 0 0
> >02:27:42
> > TCP 5.5.5.5 CONNECT 523 532 pod 0 1 0
> >00:12:35
> > TCP 4.4.4.4 CONNECT 312 366 prom 0 0 0
> >02:25:49
> >
> >So are DLSW Peer Groups(Border Peers) & Peer-on-Demand the SAME THING????
> >If not,
> >what is the difference, & when would one wants to use the "dlsw
> >peer-on-demand-default tcp-queue-max" command?
> >
> >Anyway, below are my partial configs:-
> >
> >RTA#sh run
> >Building configuration...
> >
> >hostname RTA
> >!
> >!
> >dlsw local-peer peer-id 1.1.1.1 group 1 border promiscuous
> >dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 3.3.3.3
> >dlsw bridge-group 1
> >!
> >interface Loopback0
> > ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.255
> >!
> >interface FastEthernet0/0
> > ip address 172.16.3.1 255.255.255.0
> > speed 10
> > half-duplex
> > bridge-group 1
> >!
> >interface Serial0/0
> > description to RTC
> > ip address 10.64.3.177 255.255.255.240
> > clockrate 64000
> >!
> >!
> >interface Serial1/2
> > description to RTB
> > ip address 10.64.3.99 255.255.255.240
> > no ip mroute-cache
> > clockrate 64000
> >!
> >interface Serial1/3
> > description to RTE
> > ip address 10.64.3.161 255.255.255.240
> > clockrate 64000
> >!
> >router eigrp 1
> > network 1.0.0.0
> > network 10.0.0.0
> > no auto-summary
> > no eigrp log-neighbor-changes
> >!
> >!
> >bridge 1 protocol ieee
> >!
> >!
> >end
> >
> >RTA#
> >
> >=====================================================
> >
> >RTB#sh run
> >Building configuration...
> >
> >hostname RTB
> >!
> >dlsw local-peer peer-id 2.2.2.2 group 1 promiscuous
> >dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 1.1.1.1
> >dlsw bridge-group 1
> >!
> >!
> >interface Loopback0
> > ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255
> >!
> >interface Ethernet0
> > no ip address
> > bridge-group 1
> >!
> >interface Serial0
> > description to RTA
> > ip address 10.64.3.97 255.255.255.240
> > no fair-queue
> >!
> >!
> >router eigrp 1
> > network 2.0.0.0
> > network 10.0.0.0
> > no auto-summary
>
=== message truncated ===
http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies
- What's on at your local cinema?
.
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.
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Feb 01 2003 - 07:33:42 GMT-3