From: Tasuka Amano Hsu (tasuka@mac.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 01:46:31 GMT-3
Hi, why don't you use the dlsw backup peer ?
R1
dlsw local-peer peer-id 10.1.1.1
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 10.1.1.2
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 10.1.1.3 backup-peer 10.1.1.2
Best Regards
Tasuka
On Sunday, Feb 16, 2003, at 19:07 Asia/Taipei, Ali Fahmi wrote:
> 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 Apr 05 2003 - 08:51:38 GMT-3