Ok, here are the result of my tests (cummulative) 1) I gave the loopbacks unique IP addresses and tested
result: no change 2) I assigned isdn1 f0/0 to vlan11 and isdn f0/0 to vlan12 on isdn1 f0/0 ip address was 192.168.10.1/24 on isdn2 f0/0 ip address was 192.168.20.1/24 I left the default route unchanged on both routers and tested result: no change 3) I remove the default route and created specific routes instead on isdn1: ip route 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.1.2 on isdn2: ip route 192.168.20.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.1.1 result: no change. When the first bri channel was up, I was able to ping nor the two fast ethernet interfaces nor the two bri interface. Strange!!! 4) I added the keyword "name" to each map statement (as suggested by Gaz) on isnd1:dialer map ip 172.16.1.2 name isdn2 broadcast 5554000 on isdn2:dialer map ip 172.16.1.1 name isdn1 broadcast 5551234 result: double success. RouterA (isdn1) did not try to initiate another connection AND I was able to ping the fast ethernet interfaces and the bri interfaces. See below: isdn2#ping 192.168.10.1 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.10.1, timeout is 2 seconds: 01:12:30: ISDN BR0/0: RX on B1 at 64 Kb/s 01:12:30: ISDN BR0/0: Event: Accepting the call id 0x10 01:12:131009057551: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface BRI0/0:1, changed state to up 01:12:30: ISDN BR0/0: TX -> CALL_PROC pd = 8 callref = 0x94 01:12:30: Channel ID i = 0x89 01:12:30: ISDN BR0/0: TX -> CONNECT pd = 8 callref = 0x94 01:12:30: Channel ID i = 0x89 01:12:30: ISDN BR0/0: RX <- CONNECT_ACK pd = 8 callref = 0x14 03:55:06: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface BRI0/0:1, changed state to up. 01:12:32: BR0/0:1 DDR: dialer protocol up.!!! Success rate is 60 percent (3/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 32/32/32 ms isdn2# 01:12:33: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface BRI0/0:1, changed state to up 03:55:09: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface BRI0/0:1, changed state to up Now that the problem is solved (thanks Gaz, Daniel, Ahoang and Thomas), we need to understand the reasons for the behavior of router A . To summarize: 1) Without the "name" keyword, routerA attempts to initiate a connection on receiving a connection initiated by router B. 2) Once the channel setup from B is up, data traffic does not flow even with proper routes. My gut feeling is that "name" keyword is preventing data traffic to flow between the two routers , even when the channel is up! This would explain why routeA is attempting to open a new connection even though there is a channel already up. routerA must be thinking that it is not allowed to use the already existing channel to reply to router B ... but then it would mean that something must have leaked from A to B to prone routerA to initiate a connection ... but what if not ip data? I will do some more research on this and post my findings&remaks&questions in a next post. Pierre-Alex Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=46663&t=46496 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
