From: Janto Cin (jantocin@datacomm.co.id)
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 08:14:47 GMT-3
Hi David,
Should we use netmask rather than wildcard mask for dlsw icanreach
mac-address?
Janto
----- Original Message -----
From: "Voss, David" <dvoss@heidrick.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 10:11 AM
Subject: RE: DLSW:explorer & MAC
> I'm sure this is what the lab is asking for. Can't tell by your wording,
> but I believe you are looking for option #2.
>
> dlsw icanreach mac-exclusive
> dlsw icanreach 4004.0000.4444 mask 0000.ffff.0000
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sage Vadi [mailto:sagevadi@yahoo.co.uk]
> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 10:36 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: DLSW:explorer & MAC
>
>
> All,
>
> Q) You are trying to eliminate explorer packets from
> traversing the network. Configure R1 so that explorers
> for MAC address 4004.XXXX.4444 do not get sent through
> the network. This addresss should be exclusive to R1.
>
> I was pondering about this. And I came to a few
> conclusions, but I am not sure if they are correct.
>
> 1# We could implement a MAC to PEER mapping statement
> on R3, with "dlsw mac-addr"
>
> NB: this doesn't allows us the flexibility of MAC
> classification.
>
> 2# We could implement "dlsw icanreach mac-exclusive"
> on the core router.
>
> NB: but this would then propagate to all other peers
> as well.
>
> Any suggestions/thoughts/insights?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
> .
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:21 GMT-3