From: Dennis Dumont (dfdumont@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Apr 27 2003 - 15:55:52 GMT-3
> i want connect both these routers togther as 1 big
> frame realy switch.
Can't be done. Each frame switch operates PVC's to
its local ports only. But... You can connect them as
two frame switches that have an NNI interface between
them as follows:
R1:
int ser x/x
encap frame
frame-relay intf-type nni
frame route 101 int ser x/x+1 201
(Presents DLCI 201 to the client attached to port
x/x+1)
R2:
int ser y/y
encap frame
frame-relay intf-type nni
frame route 101 int ser y/y+1 301
(Presents DLCI 301 to the client attached to port
y/y+1)
This adds some interseting capabilities you don't
normally have, like mismatched CIR's, disparate
traffic shapping/policing, and different LMI
end-to-end. You can begin to simulate what is
actually in the real world.
> problem i cant tunnel as 1 ethernet port and 1 a
> token ring.
>
> i do beleive u can connect the router together using
> the auxillary port then
> tunnel the aux .
??? I'm lost with this. What are you thinking?
encapsulating frame in a Tunnel interface? or just
getting the two frame switches to speak BGP or an IGP
to each other? If you need layer three routing
between the switches, then use the AUX trick. Its
VERY documented in the archives of Groupstudy - just
be aware that you're limited to a 38,400 bps link and
its ASYNC so nothing really taxing.
Otherwise keep in mind that Frame-relay is a layer two
(2) protocol and as such has no knowledge of IP or its
routing. Just get the two switches to speak LMI to
each other across the NNI interface above and they can
each switch PVC traffic from the NNI interface to
another serial port.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 01 2003 - 13:36:08 GMT-3