On 16-May-2001, Moahzam Durrani wrote:
> This might seem alittle confusing ..
> We have two sites in different locactions ..
> Network A is in carlton Tx, and has been originally been provided with
> Network adress 63.x.x.x/24 (registered and routable)
> Network B is in San Jose with a class B adress of x.x.0.0/16 . This
Network
> has been broken down into many class C for different corp locations.
> Our frame relay is through sprint , and thats how the different Class C in
> Network B communicate. We are integrating Network A with Network B
> We originally planned to add route statements for the 63.x.x.x/24 network
> to our frame relay sites , however were having problems as it was bieng
> advertised as 63.0.0.0 /8 . Yes we are using RIP V2 , and I know that if we
> move towards BGP or OSPF things would be better. Thats the
> future direction we are going towards
Try this on the router that's announcing 63.0.0.0/8
ip classless
router rip
no auto-summary
...
You will also want ip classless on the rest of the routers in the
frame cloud (so that they will still send packets via the default
route for destinations that are part of 63.0.0.0/8 but not in your
63.x.x.x/24.
> Next we tried giving changing the devices on Network A with one of our
Class
> C. However We needed Network A to go out through their own internet rather
> then going through the frame and use our Internet. Plus the development
team
> does alot of heavy file transferring and if they used the internet through
> through Network B , they would use alot of our BW. At the moment I have
> Devices on Network A with our Class C , and for them to go through their
ISP
> with their existing 63.x.x.x/24 adress they go out through a proxy. It
works
> fine. The Engineers on their side think going out to the internet through
a
> proxy will interfere with there work and testing (there are only 6 users in
> that team)
>
> The problem is they want to revert back to the 63 adress range and use NAT
> to go throughthe frame to get to corp servers. Is that a feasible
solutions.
> I would appreciate any comments or advice, implications ect... I have
worked
> with NAT for providing unregisterd Network adress to communicate with the
> registered IP adress..
Using NAT in this situation would be just working around your routing
problem. I'd work on solving the routing problem instead.
> this scenario might sound a little unclear ..
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Andrew W. Smith ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Chief Network Engineer **
** http://www.neosoft.com/neosoft/staff/andrew ** 1-888-NEOSOFT **
** NeoSoft, Inc. An Internet America Company 1-800-BE-A-GEEK **
** "Opportunities multiply as they are seized" - Sun Tzu **
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=4708&t=4702
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
