From: Ian Blaney (ian.blaney@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Sep 02 2007 - 05:53:45 ART
Hi Lim
Check this link. It explains it very well
http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200603/msg00484.html
HTH
Ian
On 9/2/07, Toh Soon, Lim <tohsoon28@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Group,
>
> This may sound like a really really mundane question but I'd like to seek
> clarification from the group.
>
> R6 is the hub with two PVCs; one going to R2 and one to R5.
>
> R6 Config
> ---------
> !
> interface Serial0/0/0
> no ip address
> encapsulation frame-relay IETF
> no frame-relay inverse-arp
> frame-relay lmi-type cisco
> !
> interface Serial0/0/0.2 multipoint
> ip address 172.16.25.6 255.255.255.0
> frame-relay map ip 172.16.25.2 601 broadcast CISCO
> frame-relay map ip 172.16.25.5 605 broadcast
> no frame-relay inverse-arp
> !
>
> R6#sh fram map
> Serial0/0/0.2 (up): ip 172.16.25.2 dlci 601(0x259,0x9490), static,
> broadcast,
> CISCO, status defined, active
> Serial0/0/0.2 (up): ip 172.16.25.5 dlci 605(0x25D,0x94D0), static,
> broadcast,
> IETF, status defined, active
>
> R2 Config
> ---------
> !
> interface Serial0/0/0
> ip address 172.16.25.2 255.255.255.0
> encapsulation frame-relay IETF
> frame-relay map ip 172.16.25.6 106 broadcast
> no frame-relay inverse-arp
> frame-relay lmi-type cisco
> !
>
> R2#sh fram map
> Serial0/0/0 (up): ip 172.16.25.6 dlci 106(0x6A,0x18A0), static,
> broadcast,
> IETF, status defined, active
>
>
> I intentionally set CISCO encapsulation on R6 for DLCI 601 (going to R2).
> On
> R2, DLCI 106 (going to R6) uses IETF encapsulation.
>
> Both routers can still ping to each other. Isn't the connection supposed
> to
> fail with the mismatch encapsulation?
>
> Please advise.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> B.Rgds,
> Lim TS
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 06 2007 - 12:01:09 ART