| Author |
correct frame-relay configuration please....
|
|
| TrailBossNJ 2002-07-30, 6:38 pm |
| i know you ccnp's (or wannabe ccnp's) know your stuff, i have a little argument goin with a co-worker about the correct configuration of frame-relay on fastethernet interfaces....connect router A, for instance, to router B, using fastethernet interface. he says you dont HAVE to use a subinterface, I say you SHOULD use subinterface...who is correct and what would that entire config look like, to the best of your knowledge? lets say there is nothing configured on the remote router yet....its all from scratch...what do you all think? course HE is the expert and im just a lowly A+ guy...lol...thanks for any input you can give to settle this matter...do you REALLY have to use subinterface? or can you use just the interface? wouldnt that require some degree of non-essential administrative effort in the future if you decided to split that traffic up and shape it? thanks again... | |
| cyscoguru 2002-07-30, 8:13 pm |
| you can't do frame-relay over ethernet. who would want to put frame-relay encapsulation over ethernet between two routers which not possible anyways becuase ethernet don't even support frame-relay enapsulation. frame-relay relay is made to go over serial interfaces.
i think he should get stripped of his certification. i ain't trying to be rude but he should've known that.
hope this helps for the both of you guys. | |
| TrailBossNJ 2002-07-30, 8:24 pm |
| ok, didnt mean to say ethernet, i meant wan interface, but GOOD CALL! i knew i could find some answers here...assuming i meant serial interface...would it be necessary to use point to point like i say it should be? what would the config look like...? to be fair it wasnt him that said ethernet...but then, i am not a cisco guru! lol....how would you set it up? | |
|
| you know... don't HAVE to and SHOULD do... these things are not mutually exclusive...
you should obey the traffic laws... but don't have to... if you can live wiht the consequences...
so... academic...
for some sample setup, check
add www.cisco.com/ in front of the following...
pcgi-bin/Support/PSP/psp_view.pl?p=Internetworking:Frame_Relay& s=Implementation_and_Configura
tion#Samples_%26_Tips
copy/paste in browser
section *samples and tips* | |
| cyscoguru 2002-07-30, 8:42 pm |
| it depends on some situations. like a point-to-point to link that you said you are doing is fine. but scalibility is an issue. like you said you have a router A and router B like on a 192.168.1.0/24 subnet and you have a point-to-point subinterface there. and you just got another router that you want to connect to router A and say for example its router C and router C wants to be on the same subnet. so now you can't. it don't really matter if its point-to-point or multipoint. you can statically map your dlci's to the interface but with point-to-point you can use the frame-relay interface dlci. but i'll give you and example with both ways would work.
Scenario 1: point-to-point
you have two sites that you want to connect by frame-relay, here you can use point-to-point.
hostname rtra
!
int s0
en frame-relay
no shut
int s0.102 point-to-point
ip ad 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
frame-relay interface-dlci 102
no shut
!
end
hostname rtrb
!
int s0
en frame-relay
no shut
int s0.201 point-to-point
ip ad 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0
frame-relay interface-dlci 201
no shut
!
End
Scenario 2: multipoint
hostname rtra
!
int s0
en frame-relay
no shut
int s0.102 multipoint
ip ad 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
frame-relay map ip 192.168.1.2 102 broad
no shut
!
end
hostname rtrb
!
int s0
en frame-relay
no shut
int s0.201 multipoint
ip ad 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0
frame-relay map ip 192.168.1.1 201 broad
no shut
!
End
Scenario 3: physical interfaces
hostname rtra
!
int s0
en frame-relay
ip ad 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
no shut
!
end
hostname rtrb
!
int s0
en frame-relay
ip ad 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0
no shut
!
End
the broad in the scenario 2 mean broadcast traffic will pass through the frame-relay network.
int scenario 3 all you have to do is enable encapsulationf frame-relay and let inverse-arp take care of everything. and the ip address get replaced for what the provider provided you with. but with subinterfaces you have to specify the dlci becuase by default all the dlci's will get tied to the physical inteface.
hope all of this helps | |
| TrailBossNJ 2002-07-31, 4:49 am |
| i went to cisco site, and looked too...man..there is so much stuff there! but how you put it is pretty much how i read it...i know from reading M$ that scalability is or should be, an issue when implementing and the subinterface makes it easier in the future right? just add more subinterfaces...or buy another router? thanks for the info!  | |
| cyscoguru 2002-07-31, 7:21 am |
| more subinterfaces. | |
| Yankee 2002-08-02, 5:24 am |
| You can't just keep adding subinterfaces because on the hub side you're limited to the bandwidth of a T1 or E1 in Europe(assuming we have been talking about a serial interface). If you are engineering a network of any size, that one hub T1 won't likely support over 6-8 remote sites depending on their bandwidth requirements.
Just something to keep in mind,
Yankee |
|
|
|