From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Apr 09 2005 - 13:17:39 GMT-3
Hi guys,
Look at this scenario. There are 2 pvc's going between R-A and R-B. In this
example, they just happen to be ATM, but could just as well been f/r pvc's.
R-A's config:
interface ATM3/0
bandwidth 1544
no ip address
no atm ilmi-keepalive
pvc 100/100
!
pvc 200/200
!
bridge-group 1
R-B's config:
interface ATM3/0.1 multipoint
bandwidth 1544
pvc 100/100
!
bridge-group 1
!
interface ATM3/0.2 multipoint
bandwidth 1544
pvc 200/200
!
bridge-group 1
I've got a couple questions about this config. Maybe someone can help me
understand this better.
First, let me confirm that although the config's for R-A and R-B are done a
little differently, functionally they're equivalent, correct?
(If that's not true, then my real questions might not make any sense.)
OK, here's what I need to understand.
Is the above config for R-A and R-B functionally equivalent to having an
etherchannel between R-A and R-B except instead of 2 physical links, there
are 2 logical links?
I want to make sure because otherwise there would be spanning tree issues
and one of the pvc's will be blocked.
If these 2 pvc's are being treated like an etherchannel, why is that?
From looking at these config's, I would have thought that the routers would
treat each pvc like a physical link and then used STP to block one of the
pvc's, but that doesn't seem to be happening. (I did a show span and all
pvc's were forwarding.)
If someone can explain this, I'd be very grateful.
TIA, Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 03 2005 - 07:54:55 GMT-3