I think the secondary address could work as a workaround. It would be a way
to logically place the server on its own network.
I think that any solution of that kind is sort of a kludge, though, (no
offence). The design should be fixed. It's screwy to have a server sitting
on that link between the two sites. Logically that link between e1 on the
local router and e0 on the remote router is really a point-to-point
wide-area circuit. It just happens to be Ethernet because the Aironet
bridges use Ethernet. Placing a server on that link is like placing a
server on a WAN link, if that were possible.
I agree that the best solution is to segment off that "WAN" LAN link
between the sites. It should be a point-to-point link with no servers. You
could add a router, but it would be cheaper to just move that server,
wouldn't it?
If I have jumped to incorrect conclusions (based on very little data about
your actual network), I apologize. Still recovering from Independence Day!
;-)
Thanks for bringing this interesting scenario to our attention. Please keep
us posted on the solution you decide on.
Priscilla
At 11:06 AM 7/5/01, KM Reynolds wrote:
>Exactly, the server is on the ethernet where the bridge is. The router at
>the remote side does have another ethernet(e1) interface, but it is being
>used, and any device connected to this e1, I am able to ping, via the ISDN
>backup link, when I disconnect the wireless.
>
>If this e1 was not being used I would have plugged the remote bridge to e1
>and segment the wireless bridges.
>
>So, it surely looks like I need to add a router to segment the wireless
>bridges. Or I wonder, I can place a secondary IP address on the remote
>router, and segment the wireless bridges that way, this way traffic would
>get to the remote bridge, go to the remote router on the secondary ip,
>then route/arp to the server. This may work, what do you think? I know
>adding a secondary address is to be avoided and to be used for only for
>temporary situations.
>
>I am now very curious, on ways to get this to work. However, in the end,
>for scalability, support and simplicity, I think adding a router or
>another ethernet interface to the remote router and segment the bridges is
>the way to proceed.
>
>I hope the secondary IP part makes sense.
>
>KM
>
>
>>From: Priscilla Oppenheimer
>>To: "KM Reynolds" ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: Directly connected ethernet interface [7:10998]
>>Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 19:00:58 -0700
>>
>>Well, the parade is over, and now I'm _really_ tired, but, I got to
>>wondering again. What problem are you trying to solve? Why doesn't the
>>EIGRP route go away anyway, even though e1 is still up. The local router
>>should stop hearing EIGRP hellos from the remote router if the wireless
>>link between them is down. Convergence might not be fast (three hellos must
>>fail) but it should still work.
>>
>>You do have a router at the remote side too, don't you? Is it running
EIGRP?
>>
>>Oh, I get it. The server is not on the other side of the router at the
>>remote site. It's on a switch on the Ethernet where the bridge is. Can you
>>move the server to the other side of the router?
>>
>>Priscilla
>>
>>At 08:46 PM 7/4/01, KM Reynolds wrote:
>>
>>>Oh yes, you all have a holiday. Happy 4TH of July (Everyone).
>>>I shall wait to see if any CCIEs reply. If not I think segmenting the
>>>wireless bridges is the way to go, I feel bridging is taking a step back.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>KM
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: Priscilla Oppenheimer
>>>>To: "KM Reynolds" ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>Subject: Re: Directly connected ethernet interface [7:10998]
>>>>Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 09:12:25 -0700
>>>>
>>>>Sitting here at Starbucks, using wireless, waiting for the 4th of July
>>>>parade.... My brain isn't working too well. The latte wore off hours ago.
>>>>
>>>>But.... it occurs to me that Aironet is bridging, as you know. The routed
>>>>network doesn't know when a bridged network goes down. Could you do this
>>>>area of the network with all bridging? Could the ISDN link use bridging
>>>>also, in other words? I know bridging over ISDN is supported.
>>>>
>>>>The convergence might be so slow, however, that you could pull the e1
>>>>interface in about the same timeframe (if you knew to do it though.)
>>>>
>>>>I can't think of any other solution (besides the one you mentioned of
>>>>adding a router). It's an interesting design question. Maybe one of the
>>>>CCIEs on the list will answer.
>>>>
>>>>Priscilla
>>>>
>>>>At 11:35 AM 7/4/01, KM Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>Hi Everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>>Need you help.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have a server that is on a remote LAN. To ping the server, the
traffic
>>>>>goes in the local router(gateway) e0, out e1, to a local Aironet
wireless
>>>>>bridge, to the remote Aironet wireless bridge, to a switch, to server.
>>>>>Works great.
>>>>>
>>>>>Currently, there is also a link to the remote site, an ISDN, from the
>>>>>local
>>>>>router to a remote router. We would like to use this ISDN as a backup
to
>>>>>wireless connection.
>>>>>
>>>>>The routers are configured to use EIGRP to route between the wireless,
and
>>>>>floating routes are set with higher administrative distance so when the
>>>>>EIGRP disappears out of the routing table the floating routes route
>>>>>via the
>>>>>ISDN.
>>>>>
>>>>>All works, when the ethernet (e1) is shutdown. When I disconnect the
>>>>>wireless at the remote, the ISDN comes up. The problem is, the route
>>>>>to the
>>>>>directly connected ethernet LAN is still in the routing table (C
>>>>>192.168.30.128 255.255.255.128 is directly connected, Ethernet1). So
>>>>>traffic
>>>>>still flows out of e1, and I guess when it reaches the remote wireless
>>>>>bridge, it is discarded, that where the connection is down.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is there anyway around this, is there a way for the e1 to detect the
>>>>>path is
>>>>>down or is my only option to place a router and segment the wireless
>>>>>bridge
>>>>>link.
>>>>>
>>>>>Any help would be great.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>KM
>>>>>_________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.
>>>>________________________
>>>>
>>>>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>>>>http://www.priscilla.com
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________________
>>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>>
>>
>>________________________
>>
>>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>>http://www.priscilla.com
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11089&t=10998
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
