From: Scott Vermillion (scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com)
Date: Sun Mar 02 2008 - 21:40:43 ARST
What he said.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Andy
Alves
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 4:30 PM
To: Han Solo; Groupstudy RS
Subject: RE: Framerelay fragment map-class option
Hi Han Solo,
IMHO what I think is happening here I suppose that you applied this only on
one side of the Frame-relay interface so you are basically fragmenting
packets
at 125 in one side and not doing this on the other side so if this was the
requirement you should apply it on both routers facing the same PVC.
HTH,
Anderson Alves
CCIE3# 16778 (R/S, SP and Security)
> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 15:28:07 -0800> From: hansolo@ccieunix.com> To:
ccielab@groupstudy.com> 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