dlsw promiscuous and encap type

From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Mar 07 2005 - 14:23:38 GMT-3

• Next message: ccie2be: "Eliminating "unnecessary overhead""
• Previous message: etaylor10@tampabay.rr.com: "Re: Local Policy Based Routing - Telnet?"
• Next in thread: simon hart: "RE: dlsw promiscuous and encap type"
• Maybe reply: simon hart: "RE: dlsw promiscuous and encap type"
• Maybe reply: ccie2be: "RE: dlsw promiscuous and encap type"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi guys,

If one peer is configured like this:

dlsw local-peer peer-id 1.1.1.1 promiscuous

can the other peer use any type of encap, tcp, fst, direct, dlsw lite as
appropriate?

Or, does using promiscuous on one side restrict the type of encap that can
be used on the remote side?

TIA, Tim

• Next message: ccie2be: "Eliminating "unnecessary overhead""
• Previous message: etaylor10@tampabay.rr.com: "Re: Local Policy Based Routing - Telnet?"
• Next in thread: simon hart: "RE: dlsw promiscuous and encap type"
• Maybe reply: simon hart: "RE: dlsw promiscuous and encap type"
• Maybe reply: ccie2be: "RE: dlsw promiscuous and encap type"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 17:56:42 GMT-3