Did you know you can do trace route with IPX on Cisco routers? It's not 
just an IP thing.

I suggest you try this. Maybe you caused some weird routing somehow. Your 
network sounds sort of complicated and non-hierarchical. Maybe the branch 
offices used to communicate directly and how they go through the core and 
out into the outer reaches and back again. Trace route would let you 
determine if this is happening.

Good luck. Let us know what you discover. This is an interesting problem.

Priscilla

At 03:52 AM 4/27/02, Ali, Abbas wrote:
>I have a network where corporate is connected to 3 branch offices through
>Point to Point.  The branch office are also connected together in a full
>mesh frame-relay toplogy as a backup.  The corporate office is also
>connected to few other small branches in a hub and spoke frame-relay
>topology.  I was running IPX RIP by default between those networks and
>response time between IPX hosts and servers was not really bad.  I decided
>to make some more changes to decrease the latency by configuring IPX eigrp
>between WAN Links only and left RIP on LAN interfaces.  Instead of
>decreasing the latency it increased it by 4 times.  Before EIGRP I copied a
>file and it took about 20 seconds.  Now it's taking almost 4 minutes.  I am
>curious where I went wrong.
>
>All I did to enable IPX Router eigrp 2
>advertised all my WAN networks.
>
>network xxxx
>network xxxx and so on.
>
>I then removed those WAN networks from RIP routing by
>
>IPX router rip
>no network xxxx
>no network xxxx and so on.
>
>Note:  I am also running EIGRP 1 for IP network.  I don't think that it will
>conflict since both have under different Autonomous systems.
>
>Any suggestions folks.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ab
________________________

Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42752&t=42735
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to