From: Andy Alves (mota_anderson@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 02 2008 - 21:44:44 ARST
You gotta it ;-) Good point Scott, you were faster than me.. |o|> Date: Sun,
2 Mar 2008 15:59:38 -0800> From: hansolo@ccieunix.com> To:
scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com> CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com> Subject: RE: Framerelay
fragment map-class option> > Oh I see so if you have that map class applied on
both ends of the pvc > then they can assemble / reassemble. But you have to
have it on both sides > if you put it on one side and not the other and a
packet comes in bigger > than 125 , the node sending puts a fragment header on
, but if other side > doesnt have it he cannot interpret it so it gets dropped
?> > > > > On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Scott Vermillion wrote:> > > Hey Han,> >> >
Were you applying 'frame-relay fragment 125' on both ends of the link? We> >
had this discussion not too long back when somebody configured fragmentation>
> but only on one end. IIRC, no fragmentation header need be applied if the> >
payload is less than the configured fragment size, so you'd be OK in that> >
case. But once your payload exceeds the configured value, fragmentation> >
headers are applied and must be interpreted for reassembly opposite the> >
link. I couldn't really find a good DocCD link that I liked (who can these> >
days?), but you may find this of interest:> >> >
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk1077/technologies_tech_note09186a00801142d>
> e.shtml> >> > It doesn't specifically cover the case of misconfigured
fragmentation and> > its impact on IGPs, but it's at least a nice overview...>
>> > Regards,> >> > Scott> >> > -----Original Message-----> > From:
nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Han> > Solo>
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 4:28 PM> > To: Groupstudy RS> > Subject:
Framerelay fragment map-class option> >> > Hi I was doing a lab this weekend
and ran into a conflicting qos option> > that broke rip.> >> > map-class
frame-relay udp8000> > frame-relay cir 100000> > frame-relay bc 1000> >
frame-relay mincir 100000> > frame-relay fair-queue> > frame-relay fragment
125> >> >> > With the above map-class applied to a frame-relay interface rip
updates> > also exiting this interface now do not get received at the remote>
> destination. So I am assuming that cmd is saying dont allow frame encap> >
packets larger than 125 , when I remove the map class from the interface> >
then all is well.> >> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 01 2008 - 07:53:52 ART