Deepak N wrote: > > Hi Vermill > Now I got the point. So when i am using the numbered > interface, the router tries to reach the next hop via the next > hop ip address, in my case it is behind the directly connected > interface.But it has no way of finding the next hop ip address > behind the unnumbered interface. So it was not able to reach > the other end. While both are unnumbered, the routes were > installed based on the outgoing interface. > > Thank you all for helping me out to find the solution. > > Thanks n regards > Deepak
Yes, I think you have it. But I was interested in some other suggestions that were made. If, on the numbered end, you entered a static route to the unnumbered interface IP using the outgoing interface, it seems like it might work. Something like: 'ip route 192.168.100.1 s0' where 192.168.100.1 was the IP of the interface being referenced in the 'ip unnumbered' statement and s0 attaches to the unnumbered interface. But something might break in the routing protocol. Again, I think it was assumed that you're going to implement unnumbered on both ends of the link in order to realize address conservation. There might also be some exchanges of information between the unnumbered interfaces that we're not aware of. An asymetrical configuration might break that. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=62199&t=62134 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
