That's what I couldn't figure out.
I think 10.20.1.104 must be host ip address, not network address.
Am I understanding wrong?
Like you recommended, I was able to ping 10.20.1.105 and 10.20.1.106.
But how did you know that it was 105 or 106 instead of 102 or 103?
JP
-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 2:36 PM
To: Jeongwoo Park; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Output of sh ip route connected [7:11266]
Jeongwoo,
I'll only make one suggestion in saying with the /30
mask what exactly are you pinging when you ping 10.20.1.140... Is that a
valid host or the network.. :-> I'd recommend trying to ping 105/106....
HTH
Nigel..
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeongwoo Park
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 4:58 PM
Subject: Output of sh ip route connected [7:11266]
> Hi all
> To make myself clearer, I put output of "sh ip route connected"
> What I asked previously was that I was not able to ping 10.20.1.104 that
is
> said to be directly connected, Serial 0.1
> I was wondering what ip address it would be
>
> WAMS>sh ip ro c
> 172.16.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 49 subnets, 3 masks
> C 172.16.111.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0
> 10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 61 subnets, 3 masks
> C 10.20.1.104/30 is directly connected, Serial0.1
>
> Thanks all
>
> JP
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11272&t=11266
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
