From: Scott Morris (smorris@ipexpert.com)
Date: Sun Feb 17 2008 - 12:13:29 ARST
The "point to point" interface types THINK differently than multpoint ones
do. In a point to point link, there are simply TWO (and only two)
endpoints. So the logic is "if it's not my address it must be yours" which
allows for mapless reachability. A multipoint interface on the other hand,
doesn't have that luxury.
HTH,
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE-M
#153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
VP - Technical Training - IPexpert, Inc.
IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor
A Cisco Learning Partner - We Accept Learning Credits!
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Fax: +1.810.454.0130
http://www.ipexpert.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
ladeegeek@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 12:39 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: NMC Lab 3 - frame - p2p vs multi
Can any one explain to me how the solution of using point to points on R1
that only have assoicated dlci's and no maps can ping R2 and R4?
I used sub interfaceswith multpoint so I could specifically state which dlci
went to R2 and which went to R4. I tried to ping r2 from r1 and was getting
encap errors. r1 had a mulitpoint sub int and a frame-map.
when i changed to match the NMC solution of point to point with just an
associated dlci I was able to ping r2??
doesn't make sense.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2008 - 16:54:48 ARST