From: Vincent Mashburn (vmashburn@fedex.com)
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 14:51:45 GMT-3
Either will work. I have found that example 2 is more scalable and has
less problems peering with routing protocols. But in a lab scenario, I
have been able to get both to work the way I want them to.
Vince Mashburn
Engineer
901-263-5072
CCNP, CCDA, Network +
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Montiean
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:23 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Frame-relay physical and sub-interface
Folks,
I have noticed that we can use physical and sub-interface to provide
the
service in frame-relay at the same time. Something likes below. So my
curious is that if question asking to have non-broadcast to one subnet
and
p-t-p to anther subnet on the hub router. Should we use the
configuration as
in ex 1 or ex 2?
How is the difference between these two config?
I have made up the example below up but didn't check if it correct,
apoligize. Just show for the idea.
### Example 1 ###
interface s0/0
encap frame
ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
no frame invert
frame map ip 1.1.1.2 102 broad
frame map ip 1.1.1.3 103 broad
interface s0/0.1 point-to-point
ip address 2.2.2.1 255.255.255.0
frame interface-dlc 202
### Example 2 ###
interface s0/0
encap frame
no frame inver
interface s0/0.1 multi
ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
bla bla bla
interface s0/0.2 point-to-point
ip address 2.2.2.1 255.255.255.0
bla bla bla
Thanks,
Montiean
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 09:12:05 GMT-3