RE: don't want to use inver-arp

From: Brian Dennis (brian@5g.net)
Date: Sun May 25 2003 - 23:02:32 GMT-3

• Next message: Lin Xiaodong: "答复: OSPF Neighboring with DLSW L"
• Previous message: Brian Dennis: "RE: OSPF Neighboring with DLSW Lite Encap"
• Maybe in reply to: Tom Young: "don't want to use inver-arp"
• Next in thread: Jay Hennigan: "Re: don't want to use inver-arp"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

P2P subinterfaces do not need inverse-arp. If there can only be one
layer 2 address assigned to a P2P subinterface, why would any dynamic or
manual mappings be needed?

Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Tom Young
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 5:56 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: don't want to use inver-arp

hi, group

Look the config below, I don't want to use inver-arp on
the interface, but on the p2p interface, It seems I
haven't choose, only the inver-arp that I have to use.
Why?

r4(config-subif)#frame map ip 133.3.13.3 403 b
FRAME-RELAY INTERFACE-DLCI command should be used on
point-to-point interfaces

• Next message: Lin Xiaodong: "答复: OSPF Neighboring with DLSW L"
• Previous message: Brian Dennis: "RE: OSPF Neighboring with DLSW Lite Encap"
• Maybe in reply to: Tom Young: "don't want to use inver-arp"
• Next in thread: Jay Hennigan: "Re: don't want to use inver-arp"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 15:13:47 GMT-3