Yeah, definitely watch out for that multilink interface feature on some of the earlier IOS versions, as it is flaky. It gets fixed in a later version, but I off-hand don't remember which one.
""Lupi, Guy"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Try "no peer neighbor-route" on the multilink interfaces, that should get > rid of your /32. It is part of ppp, when the negotiation takes place a /32 > is input for the other side. I do not use multilink unless it cannot be > avoided, I have had issues that make the use of it unappealing. Is there > any reason you can't just use CEF or fast switching and have multiple routes > to the spokes, one down each T1? If you are using CEF, it is more efficient > to do it this way because there is no overhead. In multilink each packet > gets an additional 4 byte (I think) header. By the way, I believe that the > virtual template method is outdated and no longer used. You don't need it > anyway, just the multilink interface and the serials specified as part of > it. Of course this assumes that you are using a recent IOS version. HTH. > > > Guy > > ~-----Original Message----- > ~From: Chuck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > ~Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 5:25 PM > ~To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ~Subject: Multi Link PPP ( MLP ) questions [7:39961] > ~ > ~ > ~not that I enjoy rattling around CCO researching obscure > ~topics, but I have > ~had two different customers raise the specter of multilink ppp > ~(use multiple > ~T1's to increase bandwidth without having to resort to the > ~expense of ATM or > ~DS3 ) > ~ > ~CCO tends to be rather obscure on this topic, with most of the coverage > ~devoted to ISDN links for dial access. see > ~http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121 > ~/121cgcr/dial > ~ts_c/dtsprt4/dcdppp.htm#xtocid44 > ~ > ~as an example. > ~ > ~in any case, the basic case of 2 serial links between two routers is > ~relatively simple, provide you follow the setup procedure carefully. > ~otherwise you end up in reload hell ;-> > ~ > ~But then I got curious about the case where you have three > ~routers in a hub > ~and spoke. Two serial links to one spoke, two serial links to > ~the other. > ~This got to be rather involved, and the final working result > ~has left me > ~with a situation I can't explain rationally. > ~ > ~the process: > ~ > ~Spoke router > ~ > ~1) multilink virtual-template x > ~ > ~2) interface virtual-template x > ~ ip address x.x.x.x m.m.m.m > ~ ppp multilink > ~ > ~3) interface serial 0 > ~ encap ppp > ~ ppp multilink > ~ > ~4) interface serial 1 > ~ encap ppp > ~ ppp multilink > ~ > ~Hub router > ~ > ~1) multilink virtual-template x (apparently you can only > ~have one of > ~these commands, even though x may have a value of 1-25) > ~ > ~2) interface multilink 1 > ~ ip address x.x.x.x m.m.m.m > ~ ppp multilink > ~ multilink-group 1 > ~ > ~3) interface serial 0 > ~ encap ppp > ~ ppp multilink > ~ multilink-group 1 > ~ > ~4) interface serial 1 > ~ encap ppp > ~ ppp multilink > ~ multilink-group 1 > ~ > ~5) interface multilink 2 > ~ ip address x.x.x.x m.m.m.m > ~ ppp multilink > ~ multilink-group 2 > ~ > ~6) interface serial 2 > ~ encap ppp > ~ ppp multilink > ~ multilink-group 2 > ~ > ~7) interface serial 3 > ~ encap ppp > ~ ppp multilink > ~ multilink-group 2 > ~ > ~this configuration works. but here is the kicker. in the > ~following routing > ~table, note the /32's associated with the virtual-access > ~interface on the > ~spoke router. the hub router shows /32's associated with the multilink > ~interfaces. > ~ > ~Spoke router > ~ > ~Gateway of last resort is not set > ~ > ~ 172.21.0.0/24 is subnetted, 2 subnets > ~C 172.21.1.0 is directly connected, Loopback0 > ~C 172.21.2.0 is directly connected, Loopback1 > ~ 22.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks > ~D 22.29.1.0/24 [90/5948928] via 26.44.1.2, 00:20:10, > ~Virtual-Access1 > ~D 22.29.1.1/32 [90/5948928] via 26.44.1.2, 00:20:10, > ~Virtual-Access1 > ~ 129.7.0.0/24 is subnetted, 2 subnets > ~D 129.7.22.0 [90/6076928] via 26.44.1.2, 00:20:10, > ~Virtual-Access1 > ~D 129.7.44.0 [90/6076928] via 26.44.1.2, 00:20:11, > ~Virtual-Access1 > ~ 26.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks > ~C 26.44.1.2/32 is directly connected, Virtual-Access1 > ~C 26.44.1.0/24 is directly connected, Virtual-Access1 > ~ > ~Hub router > ~ > ~Gateway of last resort is not set > ~ > ~ 172.21.0.0/24 is subnetted, 2 subnets > ~D 172.21.1.0 [90/3312896] via 26.44.1.1, 00:22:31, Multilink1 > ~D 172.21.2.0 [90/3312896] via 26.44.1.1, 00:22:31, Multilink1 > ~ 22.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks > ~C 22.29.1.0/24 is directly connected, Multilink2 > ~C 22.29.1.1/32 is directly connected, Multilink2 > ~ 129.7.0.0/24 is subnetted, 2 subnets > ~D 129.7.22.0 [90/3312896] via 22.29.1.1, 05:09:21, Multilink2 > ~D 129.7.44.0 [90/3312896] via 22.29.1.1, 05:09:22, Multilink2 > ~ 26.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks > ~C 26.44.1.1/32 is directly connected, Multilink1 > ~C 26.44.1.0/24 is directly connected, Multilink1 > ~ > ~I'm at a loss as to why there is a /32 at all. > ~ > ~interface Multilink1 > ~ ip address 26.44.1.2 255.255.255.0 > ~ no cdp enable > ~ ppp multilink > ~ multilink-group 1 > ~ > ~not that multilink ppp is a cutting edge technology. but I am > ~always curious > ~about how things really work. > ~ > ~anyone use this in real world? if so, what kinds of results > ~are you seeing? > ~ > ~thanks > ~ > ~Chuck > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39969&t=39961 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
