From: cciestudy (cciestudy@mid-world.net)
Date: Thu Aug 14 2008 - 15:24:40 ART
Thanks. Just found the thread in the archives.
Also, as far as I can tell the "no arp frame-relay" doesn't appear to do
anything.
There was a reference a while back from Scott Morris that this was a
deferred command.
_____
From: Fahad Khan [mailto:fahad.khan@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 1:09 PM
To: cciestudy
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Yet More Frame-relay inverse-arp
Yes dude, this is normal, Cmd "no frame-relay inverse-arp" blocks the
request only. plz go through the archives, this topic had been dicussed in
details.
On 8/14/08, cciestudy <cciestudy@mid-world.net> wrote:
According to the Cisco DocCD, using "no frame inverse-arp" should disable
ARP on the interface.
"...disable Inverse ARP for all protocols supported on an interface, use the
no frame-relay inverse-arp command without arguments."
However, I have seen it where it does not.
Given this example, I have 3 routers:
R1 -----FR SW --- R3
|
R2
DLCI map: R1 DLCI 103 >>> R3 DLCI 301
R2 DLCI 102 >>>R2 DLCI 201
If I do "no frame inverse-arp" on R1, but do enable it on R3.
The Frame packet debug shows R3 sending the Inarp, R1 receiving and R1
sending.
If I do a "no frame inverse-arp" on both R1 and R2 DLCI's, I see no INARP at
all.
So, it appears that the command "no frame inverse-arp" only prevents you
from actively sending, but the router will still send if it receives an
INARP.
Is this normal or something funky with the version of code I am using?
Thanks.
-----------------------------------
Here is the configs and debugs:
R1#
interface Serial0/0
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
encapsulation frame-relay
clock rate 2000000
no frame-relay inverse-arp
end
R1#debug frame-relay packet
*Mar 1 00:01:39.183: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by console
*Mar 1 00:01:39.187: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Serial0/0, changed state to
up
*Mar 1 00:01:40.187: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface
Serial0/0, changed state to up
*Mar 1 00:02:04.183: Serial0/0(i): dlci 103(0x1871), pkt encaps 0x0300
0x8000 0x0000 0x806 (ARP), datagramsize 34
*Mar 1 00:02:04.191: Serial0/0: frame relay INARP received
*Mar 1 00:02:04.195: FR: Sending INARP Reply on interface Serial0/0 dlci
103 for link 7(IP)
R1#sh frame-relay map
Serial0/0 (up): ip 192.168.1.3 dlci 103(0x67,0x1870), dynamic,
broadcast,, status defined, active
>>>> Notice I have an dynamic MAP even though it is "disabled" on the
interface?
=====
R3#debug frame-relay packet
*Mar 1 00:01:33.595: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Serial0/0, changed state to
up
*Mar 1 00:01:34.595: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface
Serial0/0, changed state to up
*Mar 1 00:02:03.607: Serial0/0(o): dlci 301(0x48D1), pkt encaps 0x0300
0x8000 0x0000 0x806 (ARP), datagramsize 34
*Mar 1 00:02:03.607: FR: Sending INARP Request on interface Serial0/0 dlci
301 for link 7(IP)
*Mar 1 00:02:03.631: broadcast dequeue
*Mar 1 00:02:03.631: Serial0/0(o):Pkt sent on dlci 301(0x48D1), pkt encaps
0x300 0x8000 0x0 0x806 (ARP), datagramsize 34
*Mar 1 00:02:03.703: Serial0/0(i): dlci 301(0x48D1), pkt encaps 0x0300
0x8000 0x0000 0x806 (ARP), datagramsize 34
*Mar 1 00:02:03.707: Serial0/0: frame relay INARP received
R3#sh frame-relay map
Serial0/0 (up): ip 192.168.1.1 dlci 301(0x12D,0x48D0), dynamic,
broadcast,, status defined, active
>>>. Note I see INARP even though R1 should not be sending? Right?
R3#
interface Serial0/0
ip address 192.168.1.3 255.255.255.0
encapsulation frame-relay
clock rate 2000000
end
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 01 2008 - 08:15:30 ART