Nizar, When I do show dl reach at r1. I am not able to see PC name Beta which is on r3 t0. I need to make sure the configs are good for task 2 requirement. I dont have a way to test this. I have netbios-name Alpha on r2 and netbios-name Beta on r3. I only see Alpha is reacable through r2 when I do show dlsw reac on r1. I am not sure this is the right way to approach task 2. Read the task 2 requirement. Thankx Regards, Shahzad -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hedhili Nizar Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 5:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DLSW questions, another idea .... ~o \.i./o~ ...... [7:3107] What is the problem if a problem exists ShahzaD Ali a icrit : > Hi folks, > > I am working on HaiBo DLSw+ Scenario > > t0 r1 --------- r2 ------- r3 t0 > |t0 > > Task 1 > configure such that host at [r2] t0 can access host at [r3] t0. The > answer is quite obvious. > > Task 2 (this is the tricky one) > configure [r1] such that host at [r2] and [r3] can access host at [r1]. > Only ONE peer connection is allowed. Border peer command is not allowed. > > I am thinking to use remote peer Passthru between r1--r2 and r2--r3 which > will provide me the same > virtual-ring group to use between r1--r2 and r2--r3. But I am not able to > see Beta on r1. > > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/ibm_ > c/bcprt2/bcddlsw.htm#21315 > > Any comments, suggestions on these configs. > > r1 > ! > source-bridge ring-group 100 > dlsw local-peer peer-id 140.1.1.1 > dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 140.1.2.2 rif-passthru 100 > > r1#sh dl rea > DLSw Remote NetBIOS Name reachability cache list > NetBIOS Name status Loc. peer > Alpha UNCONFIRM REMOTE 140.1.2.2(2065) > > r2 > ! > source-bridge ring-group 100 > dlsw local-peer peer-id 140.1.2.2 > dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 140.1.1.1 rif-passthru 100 > dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 140.1.3.3 rif-passthru 100 > dlsw icanreach netbios-exclusive > dlsw icanreach netbios-name Alpha > ! > > r2# sh dl rea > DLSw Remote NetBIOS Name reachability cache list > NetBIOS Name status Loc. peer > Beta UNCONFIRM REMOTE 140.1.3.3(2065) > > r3 > ! > source-bridge ring-group 100 > dlsw local-peer peer-id 140.1.3.3 > dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 140.1.2.2 rif-passthru 100 > dlsw icanreach netbios-exclusive > dlsw icanreach netbios-name Beta > > ! > r3#sh dl rea > DLSw Remote NetBIOS Name reachability cache list > NetBIOS Name status Loc. peer > Alpha UNCONFIRM REMOTE 140.1.2.2(2065) > > Regards, > > ShahzaD > > -----Original Message----- > From: ShahzaD Ali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 6:53 PM > To: Huang HaiBo > Subject: RE: DLSW questions, another idea > > Did you get any feedback on this ??? > > Regards, > > sa > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Huang HaiBo > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 11:37 PM > To: simplimarvelous > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: DLSW questions, another idea > > could you give details? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: simplimarvelous > To: Michel GASPARD ; Huang HaiBo > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 11:37 AM > Subject: Re: DLSW questions, another idea > > > Is it possible to do it like this? > > > > Put R2 and R3 in a cluster leave R1 on its own. It would seem that R1 > would > > only need to make a connection to the clusters ring, and would not need to > > have a connection to both routers in the cluster. I would think that the > > cluster internal routers would communicate fine, and any traffic from r3 > to > > r1 would only have to make one connection via the clusters virtual ring. > > > > sounds good in theory... > > > > > > Gerald > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michel GASPARD" > > To: "Huang HaiBo" > > Cc: > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 8:07 AM > > Subject: Re: DLSW questions, another idea > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > I though about another possibility, but I do not manage to make it work. > > > > > > I assume that to solve point 1), I used "promiscuous" in R2. > > > > > > My idea was: why not create a second DLSW tunnel, between R1 and R2 > > > (just a simple remote-peer statement is enough on R1, nothing on R2 nor > > > R3). > > > > > > In that way, frames from R2 ro R1 are OK (simple DLSW). > > > > > > For frames from R3, I thought that they might be bridged R3-R2 with the > > > first DLSW tunnel, and then bridged again if necessary into the second > > > DLSW tunnel. > > > > > > But it seems it is not working that well (well, not at all..) in > > > reality. > > > > > > Does anybody have experience of "double DLSW" bridging, i.e. frames that > > > would arrive in a router DLSW, and would be bridged again though DLSW??? > > > > > > Eventhough, this exercice was good to think "one step further"!! > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Michel > > > > > > Huang HaiBo wrote: > > > > > > > > Here is an interesting scenario I got from a practice lab. > > > > > > > > e0 s0 s0 s1 s0 e0 > > > > ---[r1]--------------[r2]-----------------[r3]----- > > > > | > > > > |e0 > > > > Task 1 > > > > configure such that host at [r2] e0 can access host at [r3] e0. The > > answer > > > > is quite obvious. > > > > > > > > Task 2 (this is the tricky one) > > > > configure [r1] such that host at [r2] and [r3] can access host at > [r1]. > > > > Only ONE peer connection is allowed. Border peer command is not > allowed. > > > > > > > > The initial thot I have is to configure [r2] as border peer and then > > > > both r1 and r3 will peer with the border peer. But this will > > > > violate the rules becos no border peer command should be in r1. > > > > > > > > Another thot that came across my mind is to configure > > > > r1 in prosmicuous mode. Then r2 and r3 will peer with r1. > > > > Doing this will violate the rule again becos there will be 2 peer > > connection. > > > > Note that the question states ONE peer connection NOT one peer > command. > > > > That is to say when u do a sh dlsw peer, there should be only ONE > > connection. > > > > > > > > Any help would be greatly appreciated. > > > > > > > > Huang > > > > **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html > > > **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html > > _________________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of hedhili.vcf] FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=3112&t=3112 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
