From: Matthew Poole (matthew.poole@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sun Feb 16 2003 - 10:12:16 GMT-3
This maybe another option, changing the timers to make one route more
preferable to the other:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F61D22773
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ali Fahmi " <afahmi@plasa.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 11:07 AM
Subject: DLSW redundacy methode-need confirmation
> Hi All,
> I have topology like this,
>
> R2----|
> (VlanA)-R1 -------- F/R claud ------| |(VLanB)
> R3 ---|
>
>
>
> Configure dlsw on R1, R2 and R3, VLAN A can comunicate to
> VLAN B,
> R1 should prefer R2, dont use cost or backup peer,
>
> Does dlsw redundancy is a best mothode to achieve this
> requirement ?
>
> Is config below right ?
>
> R1
>
> dlsw local-peer peer-id 10.1.1.1
> dlsw bridge-group 1
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 10.1.1.2
> dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 10.1.1.3
>
> bridge 1 protocol ieee
>
> interface E0
> bridge-group 1
>
>
>
>
> R2
> dlsw local-peer peer-id 10.1.1.2 prom
>
> interface E0
> dlsw transparent redundancy-enable 9999.9999.9999
> master-priority 10
>
>
> R3
> dlsw local-peer peer-id 10.1.1.3 prom
>
> interface E0
> dlsw transparent redundancy-enable 9999.9999.9999
>
>
>
> thanks
>
>
============================================================================
===============
> Meriahkan Hari Kasih Sayang dengan mengirimkan Kartu Elektronik PlasaCom
kepada kerabat dan teman yang Anda kasihi !
> Pilih kartu favorit Anda di Polling Lomba Desain Kartu Tema Valentine
> di http://kartu.plasa.com/lomba/
>
============================================================================
===============
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:24 GMT-3