xavier, it should be on the same subnet although its vpn but still logically p2p connection which should belong on same subnet. thanks, rahul. ----- Original Message ----- From: "xc" To: Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 5:39 PM Subject: L2TP tunnel addressing [7:2348] > I am just starting to read up on VPDN (L2TP) tunnels, I have a question > about addressing. > > I have found on CCO that a typical setup for L2TP has the gateway router > (the LNS) set up with a virtual-template interface that has an unnumbered > interface (for example ip unnumbered loopback 0 or ip unnumbered ethernet, > something like that). Then, in order to provide the client with an address, > it often uses something like "peer default ip address pool XXXX), where XXXX > is some local pool that has been previously defined. > > I have further discovered that the unnumbered address of that > virtual-template (for example, that ip unnumbered loopback 0) is always > within the same subnet as those in the local pool. > > My question is - is this required? Meaning, do those addresses (the > address of the interface that the unnumbered command is referencing and the > addresses within the local pool) have to be in the same subnet. I think > that it is required, but I want to be sure, and I unfortunately don't have > my lab in front of me right now to check it out. CCO always seems to do it > this way, but they don't explain if it really is required to do things this > way. > 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=2352&t=2348 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
