From: Felice Russell (felicear@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Tue Jul 20 2004 - 12:42:36 GMT-3
Joseph,
Thank you that is an excellent resource. I just checked the Solie book and
he says inverse-arp still resolves with static mapping....but I will take
this CCO resource as gospel! Thanks again, Felice
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Joseph D. Phillips
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 8:29 AM
To: Felice Russell; group study
Subject: Re: Frame-relay and inverse-arp
Frame-relay map statements disable inverse-arp for the DLCIs that are
statically mapped. I was always told it's good practice to disable
frame-relay inverse arp when configuring static maps anyway.
From
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios103/rpcg/79086.h
tm#3896
<snip>A static map links a specified next-hop protocol address to a
specified DLCI. Static mapping removes the need for Inverse ARP requests;
when you supply a static map, Inverse ARP is automatically disabled for the
specified protocol on the specified DLCI.<snip>
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:18:05 -0700, "Felice Russell"
<felicear@sbcglobal.net> said:
> Folks,
> I am wondering if I have missed a frame-relay key. Is it considered
> poor form or illegal configuration to use frame-relay inverse-arp with
> fram-relay map statements? I have tried without success to find a
> confirmation of this
> on CCO with no luck. I have found sample configurations using frame map
> statements with inverse-arp enabled but I am not certain that is solid
> enough proof. If someone is aware of a specific link with the details of
> inverse-arp and proper mapping techniques it would be greatly
> appreciated.
> Many Thanks,
> Felice
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials
> from: http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:11:59 GMT-3