Re: Frame-relay again

So just to make sure I got this.

In the last scenario, both of you agreed that the PVC status shows "ACTIVE"
but the pings do not work all the way through.

Right?

So the student who is taking the lab might not profit from this thread. A
little fun........I know I've enjoyed it.

I say we stick with the original......Turn off LMI and reload the router to
achieve what the student was looking for in the first place.

Paul

-- 
Paul Negron
CCIE# 14856 CCSI# 22752
Senior Technical Instructor
www.micronicstraining.com
> From: Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>
> Reply-To: Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:38:29 -0300
> To: Narbik Kocharians <narbikk_at_gmail.com>
> Cc: selamat pagi <ketimun_at_gmail.com>, jason munns <jasonmunns13_at_gmail.com>,
> Adam Booth <adam.booth_at_gmail.com>, "Grammer, Christopher"
> <cgrammer_at_essilorusa.com>, Cisco certification <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>,
> Marcelo Rosa <MRosa_at_multirede.com.br>
> Subject: Re: Frame-relay again
> 
> Narbik Kocharians @ 27/08/2010 14:07 -0300 dixit:
>> Unbelievable
>> My last post on the subject
>> 
>> Its a nice pattern Carlos.
>> 
>> 1^st item-------correct
>> 2^nd item-------Wrong
>> 3^rd item--------correct
>> 4^th item--------Wrong (The proof is here, I have included the config)
>> 5^th item---------correct
>> 6^th item--------Wrong
>> 
>> Notice your yet another new topology is NOT transferring anything, I
>> have configured a sub-interface and it still does not work.
> 
> Yep, unbelievable the ammount of work you put into trying to disqualify
> something using psychology tricks. But I'm keeping it technical now,
> sort of :-)
> Many algorithms do use a try and get better "iterative" way of reaching
> target, may be I'm using that!
> 
> BTW, I don't know how "R1 - FRsw - R2" is perceived by you as a new
> topology, may be you have a different semantics for topology.
> 
>> On R1
>> interface Serial0/0
>>  no ip address
>>  encapsulation frame-relay
>>  *no keepalive*
>>  frame-relay lmi-type cisco
>> !
>> 
>> interface Serial0/0.12 point-to-point
>>  ip address 200.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
>>  snmp trap link-status
>>  frame-relay interface-dlci 102
>> 
>> On R2
>> R2#sh frame pvc 201 | Inc STATUS
>> DLCI = 201, DLCI USAGE = LOCAL, PVC STATUS = INACTIVE, INTERFACE = Serial0/0
>> 
>> On R1
>> R1#p 200.1.1.2
>> 
>> Type escape sequence to abort.
>> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 200.1.1.2, timeout is 2 seconds:
>> 
>> .....
>> 
>> Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
> 
> And you hoped it would work ? Didn't I say that the frame switch would
> drop it if one end had LMI configured and up ?
> 
>> The only one that works is when we have the following:
>> 
>> R1 (LMI  OFF)
>> FR(SW) S0/1 (LMI  ON)
>> FR(SW) S0/2 (LMI  OFF)
>> R2 (LMI  OFF)
> 
> I'm glad you now see it, it's been 3 or 4 mails ago when I mentioned it.
> 
>> 
>> But if you go to the FR-SW and do a show frame pvc you will see that
>> it says that its dropping packets and NOT forwarding any of them, and
>> why do we see the ping successful, I have not had the time to do some
>> data scoping, maybe it will be a different story if we have 2
>> frame-relay switches connected via an AUX port and see if it actually
>> drops or forwards. Or maybe Cisco routers dont implement Fr-Sw in a
>> 100% manner.
> 
> Right, also mentioned by me some time ago. Glad you learned something too.
> 
> Enough of this already. Agreed.
> -Carlos
> 
> -- 
> Carlos G Mendioroz  <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>  LW7 EQI  Argentina
> 
> 
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net