From: Thomwin Chen (thomwin_chen@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Aug 08 2005 - 03:31:46 GMT-3
Dave,
correct, thinking there is imaginary "frame-relay interface-dlci xxx" syntax on main interface helps me a lot. (analogous to assigning a DLCI to multipoint or point-to-point subinterface).
in multipoint subinterface, probably you won't need no frame-relay inverse-arp syntax.
and in real world implementation, probably you won't use it at all.
you will have exactly the same amount of DLCIs you paid.
Rgds,
Thomwin
"Schulz, Dave" <DSchulz@dpsciences.com> wrote:
This great, Thomwin. Thanks. So, to recap, it appears that if we use the
frame map statement (implicitly defined) on any subinterface, then the all
remaining DLCIs are left on the physical. Which in most cases has no ip
addressing. Meaning that no inverse arp is being sent.
And, since Inarp is needed to map a specific remote IP address to a local
DCLI....the frame map does this already, therefore .....inarp is not needed
and disabled. However, the frame interface-dlci command does not perform any
IP address to DLCI mapping. Therefore, Inarp is needed to perform this
function. If Inarp is needed to be disabled in this case, then you must
explicitly define this with the no frame inv command.
Is my understanding correct? (just checking my thought patterns). Thanks to
all.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomwin Chen
To: Schulz, Dave; Brian Dennis; nobody@groupstudy.com; Desmond Ong; lab
Sent: 8/6/2005 2:39 AM
Subject: RE: frame-relay inverse arp
---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 04 2005 - 17:01:18 GMT-3