From: Glenn Johnson (gjcomcast@comcast.net)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 20:54:42 GMT-3
Yes -- just labbed this to confirm -- the default cost is 3.
You can use cost on your local peer statement to advertise how costly it is
to reach you.
You can use cost on your remote peer statements to specify how costly it is
to reach others.
Not sure (yet) which one wins out if conflicting, like below:
Rtr 7
dlsw local-peer peer-id 10.1.1.1
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 10.1.1.2 cost 2 (wants to treat this remote peer as
having a cost of 2)
dlsw bridge-group 1
Rtr 8
dlsw local-peer peer-id 10.1.1.2 cost 5 (wants to be seen as having a cost
of 5)
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 10.1.1.1
dlsw bridge-group 1
It looks like the local value wins out in the capabilities exchange --
On Router 7:
R7#sh dlsw ca
DLSw: Capabilities for peer 10.1.1.2(2065)
vendor id (OUI) : '00C' (cisco)
version number : 2
release number : 0
init pacing window : 20
unsupported saps : none
num of tcp sessions : 1
loop prevent support : no
icanreach mac-exclusive : no
icanreach netbios-excl. : no
reachable mac addresses : none
reachable netbios names : none
V2 multicast capable : yes
DLSw multicast address : none
cisco version number : 1
peer group number : 0
peer cluster support : no
border peer capable : no
peer cost : 5 <----------------- (cost as configured on
R8's local statement)
From what I can recall, this value [5] is determined during the
initial exchange process. However, I believe R7 will ignore it and use its
own cost value when making decision regarding reachability (so 2 trumps 5).
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Martin
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:09 PM
To: CCIE GroupStudy
Subject: Default Cost for DLSW remote-peer?
Can anyone confirm that the default cost for a DLSW remote peer is 3?
Also, As I understand it, the cost is used to choose a DLSW peer to forward
traffic to if more than one has reachability to the destination. Can anyone
confirm or correct?
TIA,
Joe Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 06:52:53 GMT-3