From: nhatphuc (nhatphuc@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Jul 14 2007 - 13:20:47 ART
Thanks all for your reply
Now I know it works and I'm not the only encounter this issue.
Phuc
On 7/14/07, Antonio Soares <amsoares@netcabo.pt> wrote:
> That's right, as Bob said, the routers understand very well each other
> (tested with deb fram packet):
>
> R1 configured with cisco
> R2 configured with ieft
>
> R1 sends protocol type=0x800 (IP)
> R2 sends NLPID=0x3CC (IP)
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> R1#
> *Mar 1 00:22:18.497: Serial0/0(i): dlci 102(0x1861), NLPID 0x3CC(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:18.497: Serial0/0(o): dlci 102(0x1861), pkt type 0x800(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:18.529: Serial0/0(i): dlci 102(0x1861), NLPID 0x3CC(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:18.533: Serial0/0(o): dlci 102(0x1861), pkt type 0x800(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:18.565: Serial0/0(i): dlci 102(0x1861), NLPID 0x3CC(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:18.565: Serial0/0(o): dlci 102(0x1861), pkt type 0x800(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:18.597: Serial0/0(i): dlci 102(0x1861), NLPID 0x3CC(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:18.601: Serial0/0(o): dlci 102(0x1861), pkt type 0x800(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:18.633: Serial0/0(i): dlci 102(0x1861), NLPID 0x3CC(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:18.633: Serial0/0(o): dlci 102(0x1861), pkt type 0x800(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> R1#
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> R2#
> *Mar 1 00:22:14.779: Serial0/0(o): dlci 201(0x3091), NLPID 0x3CC(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:14.811: Serial0/0(i): dlci 201(0x3091), pkt type 0x800,
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:14.811: Serial0/0(o): dlci 201(0x3091), NLPID 0x3CC(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:14.843: Serial0/0(i): dlci 201(0x3091), pkt type 0x800,
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:14.847: Serial0/0(o): dlci 201(0x3091), NLPID 0x3CC(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:14.879: Serial0/0(i): dlci 201(0x3091), pkt type 0x800,
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:14.879: Serial0/0(o): dlci 201(0x3091), NLPID 0x3CC(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:14.911: Serial0/0(i): dlci 201(0x3091), pkt type 0x800,
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:14.915: Serial0/0(o): dlci 201(0x3091), NLPID 0x3CC(IP),
> datagramsize 104
> *Mar 1 00:22:14.947: Serial0/0(i): dlci 201(0x3091), pkt type 0x800,
> datagramsize 104
> R2#
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> So in the lab i wouldn't change anything unless they ask me.
>
> And we need to remember that IEFT is only necessary to interoperate with
> non-Cisco routers.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> Sinclair
> Sent: sabado, 14 de Julho de 2007 14:09
> To: nhatphuc
> Cc: Cisco certification
> Subject: Re: Is FR encapsulation between DTEs?
>
> nhatphuc wrote:
> > Hi Group,
> >
> > Sorry for my basic question. I need your help on this:
> >
> > My network diagram:
> >
> > R1----(FRS)----R2
> >
> > I configure Frame Relay on R1 using Cisco type and R2 using IETF.
> >
> > I thought it wouldn't work because encapsulation is for routers (DTE)
> > only. But it worked. I can ping from R1 to R2 and vice versa.
> >
> > Can you explain why it is so? Or I misunderstood this basic concept?
> Phuc,
>
> In theory it is just as you say: Frame-relay DTE encapsulations need to
> match. However in practice the Cisco router can read all of the
> encapsulations and mismatched encapsulation does actually work.
>
> Hth,
>
> --
>
>
> Bob Sinclair CCIE 10427 CCSI 30427
> www.netmasterclass.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 18 2007 - 08:17:41 ART