From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Sun Jul 20 2008 - 11:59:30 ART
Once you involve PPPoFR, you are routing through the PPP virtual interfaces,
not the frame-relay subinterfaces. So since we use interface/sub-interface
to give a logical structure to next-hop routing, the location of your PPPoFR
commands really doesn't matter.
You could have one PPPoFR DLCI setup on the physical interface and another
on the subinterface, and even multilink those two together.
While it seems completely illogical, the router isn't looking at your FR
interface structure. It's looking at the PPP virtual interface structure
which is just fine.
HTH,
Scott Morris, CCIE4 #4713, JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
Senior CCIE Instructor
smorris@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Outside US: 775-826-4344
Online Community: http://www.IEOC.com
CCIE Blog: http://blog.internetworkexpert.com
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Dennis Worth
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:30 PM
To: Cisco certification
Subject: PPPoFR Multilink Scenario +/-
Hey group,
I have a ppp over frame multilink scenario on a prac-LAB.
R3 has 2 interface s1/1 and s1/0 with DLCI's assigned 304/305 in S1/0 , and
314/315 in S1/1.
R3 connect's to two spoke routers over frame and R4 and R5 which also tying
DLCI's 503/513 int s0/0 on R5 and 403/413 on R4.
I need to use p-t-p subs everywhere , but wanted to test it out with PHY's,
and things seem to be working.
What I am trying to determine is if there is any design problems or corner
case issues that could come.
Any thoughts on this setup? Please let me know.
Thank You,
Dennis Worth
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2008 - 06:11:56 ART