From: trouse@cisco.com
Date: Wed Aug 11 2004 - 00:36:06 GMT-3
Just want to make sure I am not crazy. I am aware of the issues with NAT and DLSW. Where the DLSW peers are both dropped their tcp session because of IP address. However, I do not think this is a problem for this lab one. B/C with or without nat only one tcp session is dropped so DLSW peer is able to function under these conditions and SHOULD be okay. But they describe this problem in the solution. While the solution does fix any NAT/DLSW issues, I think the actual problem in this scenerio is that the local peer-id on R5 no longer matches what R8 is using once it is NAT'ed. R8 will use 10.5.5.5 but the local peer-id is 10.50.50.1. I capture the following debug.
1w4d: DLSw: START-TPFSM (peer 10.8.8.8(2065)): event:ADMIN-OPEN CONNECTION state:DISCONN
1w4d: DLSw: dtp_action_a() attempting to connect peer 10.8.8.8(2065)
1w4d: DLSw: END-TPFSM (peer 10.8.8.8(2065)): state:DISCONN->WAIT_WR
1w4d: DLSw: Async Open Callback 10.8.8.8(2065) -> 11024
1w4d: DLSw: START-TPFSM (peer 10.8.8.8(2065)): event:TCP-WR PIPE OPENED state:WAIT_WR
1w4d: DLSw: dtp_action_f() start read open timer for peer 10.8.8.8(2065)
1w4d: DLSw: END-TPFSM (peer 10.8.8.8(2065)): state:WAIT_WR->WAIT_RD
1w4d: DLSW: peer 10.8.8.8 using incorrect ip address 10.5.5.5 <====this is the problem in my opinion, not the dropping of both peers as described.
1w4d: should match local-peer peer-id 10.50.50.1
1w4d: DLSw: dlsw_tcpd_fini() for peer 10.8.8.8(2065)
1w4d: DLSw: tcp fini closing connection for peer 10.8.8.8(2065)
1w4d: DLSw: START-TPFSM (peer 10.8.8.8(2065)): event:ADMIN-CLOSE CONNECTION state:WAIT_RD
1w4d: DLSw: dtp_action_b() close connection for peer 10.8.8.8(2065)
1w4d: DLSw: END-TPFSM (peer 10.8.8.8(2065)): state:WAIT_RD->DISCONN
Can somone confirm or deny my analysis.
See sample lab here http://www.ciscopress.com/content/images/1587051478/samplechapter/1587051478content.pdf
Thanks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 07:02:41 GMT-3