IEWB Lab 8 task 2.2 Multilink PPP over FR solution

From: msaeed@uaeu.ac.ae
Date: Sun Sep 24 2006 - 02:36:35 ART


Hi all,

Is it mandatory to use Multilink interface? As I have this solution, and
here is the output of #sh ppp multilink

R2

conf t
username Rack1R3 password 0 CISCO
interface Virtual-Template1
ip address 174.1.23.2 255.255.255.0
 ppp authentication chap
 ppp chap hostname Rack1R2
 ppp chap password 0 CISCO
 ppp multilink
interface Serial0
 no ip address
 encapsulation frame-relay
frame-relay traffic-shaping
 no frame-relay inverse-arp
!
interface Serial0.203 point-to-point
 frame-relay interface-dlci 203 ppp Virtual-Template1
!
interface Serial0.213 point-to-point
 frame-relay interface-dlci 213 ppp Virtual-Template1
end
wr

R3

conf t
username Rack1R2 password 0 CISCO
interface Virtual-Template1
 ip address 174.1.23.3 255.255.255.0
 ppp authentication chap
 ppp chap hostname Rack1R3
 ppp chap password 0 CISCO
 ppp multilink
interface Serial0/0
encapsulation frame-relay
frame-relay traffic-shaping
 no frame-relay inverse-arp
 frame-relay interface-dlci 302 ppp Virtual-Template1
!
interface Serial0/1
encapsulation frame-relay
frame-relay traffic-shaping
 no frame-relay inverse-arp
 frame-relay interface-dlci 312 ppp Virtual-Template1
end
wr

Rack1R3#sh ppp multilink

Virtual-Access5, bundle name is Rack1R2
Bundle up for 00:04:58, 1/255 load
Receive buffer limit 24384 bytes, frag timeout 1000 ms
0/0 fragments/bytes in reassembly list
0 lost fragments, 0 reordered
0/0 discarded fragments/bytes, 0 lost received
0x0 received sequence, 0x0 sent sequence
Member links: 2 (max not set, min not set)
Vi3, since 00:04:58
Vi4, since 00:04:55

Rack1R2#sh ppp multilink

Virtual-Access5, bundle name is Rack1R3
Bundle up for 00:07:33, 1/255 load
Receive buffer limit 24384 bytes, frag timeout 1000 ms
0/0 fragments/bytes in reassembly list
0 lost fragments, 0 reordered
0/0 discarded fragments/bytes, 0 lost received
0x0 received sequence, 0x0 sent sequence
Member links: 2 (max not set, min not set)
Vi1, since 00:07:33
Vi2, since 00:07:30

You can see that router has created Virtual-Access5 interface to bundle
two Virtual-Access interfaces, does any one see any problem in this
solution?

Regards,

Mohammad Zahid Saeed



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 01 2006 - 16:55:41 ART