From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Feb 10 2003 - 16:36:14 GMT-3
Hi,
In lab 28, Border Peers, Demand Peers and Resilient Peers in Solie's book,
Practical Studies, the config of the on-demand peers, both us_tours and
canada_tour, don't include "promiscusous" in the dlsw local peer statement.
Yet, in the example 13-37 on page 928, he configures the routers, both the
border and group members with "promiscusous". To me, it makes sense that
group members should be configured with "promiscuous" since they need to be
able to set up a connection on demand.
My question is this: When is it necessary to add "promiscusous" to the local
peer statement when configuring border and group members peers?
Other questions regarding this lab: us_border has a dlsw remote peer statement
pointing to us_tour. Is this because that is the only way to configure the
keepalive and timeout parameters applicable to us_tour? Also, what benefit is
there to having the us_border and us_tour peers stay active if there's no ip
connectivity between (after the primary link goes down but before the backup
link becomes active) ?
Lastly, Solie says on page 980 and on page 928, " To configure a
peer-on-demand, use the command, dlsw peer-on-demand-defaults. However, in
Cisco's dlsw documentation, it says this command is used to change the default
values. I thought that by configuring a router as a member of a peer group,
you're making it a peer-on-demand router and one would only use the dlsw
peer-on-demand-defaults command to change the default values since an
on-demand router wouldn't have a dlsw remote peer statement on which to
configure those parameters. It seems to me that Solie might be incorrect on
this one. What do you guys think?
Thanks in advance, Jim
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:18 GMT-3