I am going to advise, the customer(when back from vacation) that if they
would like to have an ISDN backup fully working, they need to add a router
to separate the wireless bridges.
Thanks, I will you all posted as to the solution.
KM
>From: Priscilla Oppenheimer
>To: "KM Reynolds" ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Directly connected ethernet interface [7:10998]
>Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 09:15:37 -0700
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11101&t=10998
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
