RE: dlsw - is the peer-id in the local-peer statement really

From: asadovnikov (asadovnikov@comcast.net)
Date: Tue Aug 12 2003 - 02:21:53 GMT-3

• Next message: asadovnikov: "RE: 12.1(5)T clear frame inarp problem:"
• Previous message: Duy Nguyen: "Re: 12.1(5)T clear frame inarp problem:"
• Maybe in reply to: ccie2be: "dlsw - is the peer-id in the local-peer statement really"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

It would not be needed if you do direct encapsulation. Since IP is not
involved with direct encapsulation there is no need to specify local ip
address.

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
ccie2be
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:00 PM
To: Group Study
Subject: dlsw - is the peer-id in the local-peer statement really
optional

Hi all,

I noticed that the syntax of the local-peer statement shows the [peer-id ip
address] as optional but I don't recall ever seeing an example where the
peer-id is left out.

If it's not really needed, can somebody show me a working example of that or
explain under what circumstances it's not needed.

Thanks in advance, dt

• Next message: asadovnikov: "RE: 12.1(5)T clear frame inarp problem:"
• Previous message: Duy Nguyen: "Re: 12.1(5)T clear frame inarp problem:"
• Maybe in reply to: ccie2be: "dlsw - is the peer-id in the local-peer statement really"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 18:53:57 GMT-3