Hello Bill,
What i meant is that we don't need IETF on R1 to have connectivity with R3 and
R8:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
R1#sh fram map
Serial4/0.103 (up): point-to-point dlci, dlci 103(0x67,0x1870), broadcast
status defined, active
Serial4/0.108 (up): point-to-point dlci, dlci 108(0x6C,0x18C0), broadcast
status defined, active
R1#
R1#
R1#deb fram pac
Frame Relay packet debugging is on
R1#ping 31.3.1.3
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 31.3.1.3, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 28/107/232 ms
R1#
00:03:28: Serial4/0.103(o): dlci 103(0x1871), pkt type 0x800(IP), datagramsize
104
00:03:28: Serial4/0(i): dlci 103(0x1871), NLPID 0x3CC(IP), datagramsize 104
00:03:28: Serial4/0.103(o): dlci 103(0x1871), pkt type 0x800(IP), datagramsize
104
00:03:28: Serial4/0(i): dlci 103(0x1871), NLPID 0x3CC(IP), datagramsize 104
00:03:28: Serial4/0.103(o): dlci 103(0x1871), pkt type 0x800(IP), datagramsize
104
00:03:28: Serial4/0(i): dlci 103(0x1871), NLPID 0x3CC(IP), datagramsize 104
00:03:28: Serial4/0.103(o): dlci 103(0x1871), pkt type 0x800(IP), datagramsize
104
00:03:28: Serial4/0(i): dlci 103(0x1871), NLPID 0x3CC(IP), datagramsize 104
00:03:28: Serial4/0.103(o): dlci 103(0x1871), pkt type 0x800(IP), datagramsize
104
00:03:29: Serial4/0(i): dlci 103(0x1871), NLPID 0x3CC(IP), datagramsize 104
R1#
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You can see that the packets are sent with CISCO encapsulation and received
with IETF encapsulation. And it works.
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S)
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: jnprbill [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: terça-feira, 2 de Junho de 2009 1:24
To: Antonio Soares
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_SP] VOL2 - Section 1
Hi Antonio,
Regarding task 1.3 -
I agree with "no arp frame-relay". In my testing, I haven't needed to use this
configuration knob to avoid inverse-arp. I'll take
a note to lookup the exact usage of this command though.
You do need to configure IETF encapsulation because the task reads that one day
a non-Cisco router will be installed at the other
end of the link. I learned this the hard way. Back in the day, JUNOS did not
support Cisco's Frame Relay encapsulation but only
IETF (and one other, I believe). It was a real pain to take an outage on the
Frame Relay hub sites to change the encapsulation to
IETF so that the new Juniper spoke could communicate. A non-Cisco router will
generally require IETF to be configured on the IOS
side. As info, I believe JUNOS now supports Cisco's proprietary encapsulation.
So, JUNOS would be a bad example but I'm sure there
are other router vendors out there that only support IETF.
I will try to read through the rest of these after my practice lab tonight. I
need to get back from my break.
Good luck,
Bill
JNCIE-M #119, CCIE #7258
On Jun 1, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Antonio Soares wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> I'm now starting Section 1 and i have some comments i would like to
> see discussed:
>
> Task 1.2) In the 7200/ATM topology, R2 is not directly connected to
> R5. R2 connects to R4 and R4 connects to R5. So if this true, this
> task is not so trivial as it seems. I lost several hours to make it
> work. Basically i configured CRB in R4 and IRB in R2 and R5. With the
> release i was using, the bridge was not working. Then i moved to
> another release and the bridge started passing traffic. Then i found
> another problem with IP traffic from R1 to R5.
> The solution was using PPP between R2 and R5 instead of HDLC.
>
> Task 1.3) Why do we need "no arp frame-relay" ? I'm convinced that
> this command has not effect at all. And we don't need to configure
> IETF in R1. The routers are smart enough to communicate even if the
> encapsulation is IEFT in one side an CISCO in the other end.
>
> Task 1.4) The default OAM timers are enough to make it faster than
> ISIS.
>
> Task 2.2) Is this minimal configuration ? My options were area-
> password and domain-password. And instead of using L2-to-L1 route
> leaking, why don't we simply send the default route from R1 and R5 to
> R2 ?
>
> Task 3.3) Isn't the command "timers throttle spf" also valid for iSPF
> ?
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
>
> Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S)
> [email protected]
>
