From: Marc La Porte (marc.a.laporte@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Feb 28 2008 - 13:15:02 ARST
Andy,
Are both DLCIs 104 and 110 on both R1 and R6? And the p2p sub-interface is
for instance using DLCI 104 on both sides? Then the "no frame inv" makes
sense on the main interface, because all DLCIs coming in from the FR switch
on that main interface are automatically assigned to the main interface, so
if you're using DLCI 104 (for instance) on your p2p sub-interface that still
leaves you with DLCI 110 "assigned" to the main interface. Granted, as long
as there is no IP address on the main interface there is no I-ARP going on
(I listen to the Brian's too --- or should I say "the Brains"), but if you
want to be sure then that's the way to go...
If you could gives us a copy of the config that would help to (like you
said) something subtle...
Marc
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Andy <and123and@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On pages 92 and 93 of CCIE Routing and Switching LAB Practice labs by
> Cisco
> it gives a solution which uses "no frame relay inverse-arp" after asking
> the
> question "ensure that DLCIs 110 and 104 between R1 and R6 are not
> used. The "no fr inverse-arp" is configed on a main interface and a
> sub-interface used for p2p connection (with the IP going on the
> sub-interface).
>
> Now I know that "no frame relay inverse-arp" on an interface without an IP
> address does nothing (coz I have read the mails from Brian Dennis ;-) But
> then why does the Cisco Press book award one point for this??? In a lab
> scenario I would not config the command where an IP address does not exist
> as I would view this as overconfiguration. Am I missing something subtle
> here?
>
> -A
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2008 - 16:54:50 ARST