Priscilla,
> > > just need to verify my thinking:
> > >
> > > example: serial line (PPP) connection between routers A and B using ip
> > > unnumbered.
> > >
> > > router A:
> > > e0=192.168.1.1/24
> > > s0=192.168.3.1/24
>
>
> Why does s0 have an address if it's unnumbered?
Good catch. I did not even notice it ;-(
Seems the authors of the BCRAN book (Thomas M. Thomas II and Adam Quiggle)
either used the wrong picture with the output, or there is no link between
the too and I am using my imagination. Both are good possibilities.
They use the same IP addressing in both examples and the picture and the
output are adjacent to each other (pg 152 and 153). I think my imagination
is the problem.
>
> > >
> > > routing table for A:
> > > c 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, ethernet0
> > > r 192.168.2.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.3.2, 00:00:05, serial0
> > > s* 0.0.0.0/0 is directly connected, serial0
> > >
> > > router B:
> > > e0=192.168.2.1/24
> > > s0=192.168.3.2/24
> > >
> > > routing table B:
> > > r 192.168.1.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.3.2, 00:00:06, serial0
> > > c 192.168.2.0/24 is directly connected, ethernet0
> > > s* 0.0.0.0/0 is directly connected, serial0
> > >
> > > i thought that the routing table should reflect the ethernet ip
address of
> > > the remote router on local serial interface?
>
> It will reflect the next hop, unless it really is unnumbered, but it
> appears to be numbered. What am I missing?
>
> Priscilla
I hate when I don't see the obvious. I think you figured it out. Thank you.
p.
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
