""cebuano"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi, > The reason for this is that although RIP treats these two networks as > separate entries residing on the SAME physical link, only the PRIMARY > address is used to send the packets. In other words, the 2ndary networks > are reliant on the primary address for delivering the packets. 2ndaries > are used solely for reachability issues in discontiguous networks which > is a problem for pure Distance-Vector protocols.
once upon a time, I believe I did some experimenting along these lines. I seem to recall that disabling ip split horizon on the ethernet interface has a benficial effect. Can't find my notes on the topic, so I can't say with certainty. Routers off line due to the time I am putting in on a particular project, so I can't mock anything up. anyone game? >Consider the debug > output... > MC3810b#trace 192.168.83.244 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Tracing the route to 192.168.83.244 > > 1 192.168.12.195 4 msec * 0 msec > 2 192.168.83.244 12 msec * * > > MC3810b#trace 10.33.55.1 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Tracing the route to 10.33.55.1 > > 1 192.168.12.195 8 msec 4 msec 4 msec > 2 192.168.83.244 8 msec > 09:33:24: ICMP: time exceeded rcvd from 192.168.12.195 > 09:33:24: ICMP: time exceeded rcvd from 192.168.12.195 > 09:33:24: ICMP: time exceeded rcvd from 192.168.12.195 > 09:33:24: ICMP: dst (192.168.12.196) port unreachable rcv from > 192.168.83.244 * 4 msec > MC3810b# > 09:33:27: ICMP: dst (192.168.12.196) port unreachable rcv from > 192.168.83.244 > > > MC3810b#trace 10.33.55.1 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Tracing the route to 10.33.55.1 > > 1 192.168.12.195 4 msec 0 msec 4 msec > 2 192.168.83.244 8 msec * 4 msec > > MC3810b# > 09:32:04: ICMP: echo reply rcvd, src 10.33.55.1, dst 192.168.12.196 > 09:32:04: ICMP: echo reply rcvd, src 10.33.55.1, dst 192.168.12.196 > 09:32:04: ICMP: echo reply rcvd, src 10.33.55.1, dst 192.168.12.196 > 09:32:04: ICMP: echo reply rcvd, src 10.33.55.1, dst 192.168.12.196 > 09:32:04: ICMP: echo reply rcvd, src 10.33.55.1, dst 192.168.12.196 > > Also, examine the entries in the routing table... > > MC3810b#sh ip route 10.33.55.1 > Routing entry for 10.33.48.0/20 > Known via "rip", distance 120, metric 1 > Redistributing via rip > Last update from 10.33.75.1 on Ethernet0, 00:00:15 ago > Routing Descriptor Blocks: > * 10.33.75.1, from 10.33.75.1, 00:00:15 ago, via Ethernet0 > Route metric is 1, traffic share count is 1 > > MC3810b#sh ip route 192.168.83.244 > Routing entry for 192.168.83.0/24 > Known via "rip", distance 120, metric 1 > Redistributing via rip > Last update from 10.33.75.1 on Ethernet0, 00:00:02 ago > Routing Descriptor Blocks: > * 192.168.12.195, from 192.168.12.195, 00:00:02 ago, via Ethernet0 > Route metric is 1, traffic share count is 1 > 10.33.75.1, from 10.33.75.1, 00:00:02 ago, via Ethernet0 > Route metric is 1, traffic share count is 1 > > I hope this answers your question. Take care. > Elmer > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:16 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: jeff's routing tcp/ip v1 question [7:61360] > > For Jeff's routing tcp/ip V1 book, page 214 and 215 . There is a > secondly > ip address , for rip version 1 because of the discontinues 10.0.0.0. So > why > there is only one route to 10.33.48.0 , and two route to 192.168.83.0 in > the > routing table of Ernest_T ? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61650&t=61360 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
