Do you count 'dlsw local-peer' as a peer ?
Or , can do you only count 'dlsw remote-peer'
statements ?
The solution you describe below will not work .
Connectivity between routerA and routerC would fail .
( Ring-lists have nothing to do with 'peering' )
flem
--- adrian smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> here is another 3 router dlsw scenario...
>
>
ethernet-routerA---serial---routerB---serial---routerC-tokenring
> |
> tokenring
>
> the goal is to have full connectivity without using
> border peers and only 2
> dlsw peerings. that is to say that the ethernet
> users on routerA can
> communicate with the tokenring on routerB, as well
> as the tokenring on rC.
>
> my theory starts with routerA and routerC peering
> with routerB. next,
> routerB has an external ring, 100, as well as a
> virtual ring 200. i build a
> ringlist to include both these rings, and apply that
> ringlist to both remote
> peer statements.
>
> would this allow for full connectivity?
>
________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ___________________________________
> UPDATED Posting Guidelines:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
