RE: Frame-relay Problem

From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Thu Jun 02 2005 - 13:54:00 GMT-3


In your first config set on R2, you're using the frame-relay interface-dlci
command.

When you do a "debug ip packet" on both sides with the first config, I bet
you'll see things...

R1 will send out the ping just fine. R2 will come up with an "encapsulation
failed" error.

When you do a "show frame map" on R2 you'll see nothing.

With your second config set put in, if you do a "show frame map" you'll have
an entry in there, and therefore things will work. L3 --> L2 mappings are
important!

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Loi,
Choon Ho
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 12:34 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Frame-relay Problem

Hi,
Hope someone can explain this to me....

If I have:

r1(multipoint) ------------ r2(physical interface)

If I configure this, r1 and r2 can ping each other.

r1#sh run | b 6/0
interface Serial6/0
 no ip address
 encapsulation frame-relay
 no frame-relay inverse-arp
!
interface Serial6/0.123 multipoint
 ip address 172.16.123.1 255.255.255.0
 frame-relay map ip 172.16.123.2 102 broadcast
 frame-relay map ip 172.16.123.3 103 broadcast
 no frame-relay inverse-arp

r2#sh run | b 1/0
interface Serial1/0
 ip address 172.16.123.2 255.255.255.0
 encapsulation frame-relay
 serial restart-delay 0
 frame-relay interface-dlci 201
 no frame-relay inverse-arp

If I configure like this, I got no problem in connectivity...

r1#sh run | b 6/0
interface Serial6/0
 no ip address
 encapsulation frame-relay
 no frame-relay inverse-arp
!
interface Serial6/0.123 multipoint
 ip address 172.16.123.1 255.255.255.0
 frame-relay map ip 172.16.123.2 102 broadcast
 frame-relay map ip 172.16.123.3 103 broadcast
 no frame-relay inverse-arp

r2#sh run | b 1/0
interface Serial1/0
 ip address 172.16.123.2 255.255.255.0
 encapsulation frame-relay
 serial restart-delay 0
 frame-relay map ip 172.16.123.1 201 broadcast
 no frame-relay inverse-arp

What's wrong with the first set?



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 14:43:40 GMT-3