Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:56:38 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: Carroll Kong <damascus@home.com> Cc: freebsd-atm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: en performance/configuration.. WOW! Message-ID: <4.2.2.20010117194902.01edcf68@marble.sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010117164809.00c78ec0@netmail.home.com> References: <5.0.1.4.0.20010117134944.01f3b890@marble.sentex.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 04:57 PM 1/17/2001 -0500, Carroll Kong wrote: >I am somewhat an amateur in ATM as well but I know a few things and I have >worked on some Cisco boxes. Looks like the Cisco 4700 is calling a >maplist, on VP 0, VC 130. Using aal5snap, with some projected >bitrate. Inverse ARP seems like an automated way to map IP addresses to >PVCs. See, normally in ethernet that is done for us with ARP since >ethernet has a MAC address that maps back to an IP. With ATM, there is no >such animal (short of other methods, but for simplicity, I will not >mention them). So ATM needs a way to map back, and it is usually done >with some static map listing IPs -> PVCs or in Cisco's case, Inverse ARP >protocol. Thanks for the explanation! What I dont understand is the purpose of the map-list. Does this not take care of the 'arp' issue ? i.e telling the two devices that these IP address are associated with these PVCs ? >You only need an ARP Server if you are using SVCs. (IIRC... and/or >LANE). I think the Inverse ARP Protocol helps alleviate people who >normally have to do some kind of static mapping between IPs and PVCs. > >Could you send me privately your Cisco 4700's config? I would if I could. The 4700 that sits here on prem, is on the other side of the demark point. I interface to it through FastE and do my BGP session with the 4700. I believe that my upstream redistributes everything via iBGP to the 4700. >As to how to configure the FreeBSD box to emulate this. I am not quite >sure. I suppose you can statically define the IP to PVC mapping. And ask >the other end to do so as well since it will no longer have Inverse ARP >protocol to rely on. But I get a feeling they already have done the >static map, and Inverse Arp is being redundant now. In my little test setup, I got everything working just using what was in the MAN pages. It was quite simple ifconfig en0 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 up route add -iface 192.168.1.2 -link en0:3.0.0.c9 ifconfig en0 192.168.1.2 netmask 0xffffff00 up route add -iface 192.168.1.1 -link en0:3.0.0.c9 And that was that. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Network Administration, mike@sentex.net Sentex Communications www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-atm" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.2.2.20010117194902.01edcf68>