Fair enough. I simply read the scenario involving two routers sharing a frame-relay p2p link. :)
Scott -----Original Message----- From: Jesper Skriver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:27 AM To: Scott Morris Cc: 'Farhan Jaffer'; 'Juniper Puck'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [j-nsp] PtP link over FR On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 07:49:09AM -0400, Scott Morris wrote: > There is no ARP in frame-relay. More specifically, on a P2P > subinterface, there's no mapping either. I think you're mis understanding my suggestion, I was suggesting that router A could only reach router B because the router in the middle did proxy ARP for B's address, so A could reach it. It has nothing to do with ARP over FR. > The assumption is that if it's not MY address it must be yours. So as > long as you believe the other side is within the defined subnet, then > you're good. > > If you have 10.1.1.1/24 on one side, and 10.1.1.2/27 on the other, > they will still talk to each other just fine. At least until you try > to run ospf or something that cares about the netmask! Yes - unless you have 10.1.1.1/24 configured on A towards 'Juniper' and 10.1.1.2/27 configured on B towards 'Juniper' /Jesper > > Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jesper > Skriver > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:24 AM > To: Farhan Jaffer > Cc: Juniper Puck; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] PtP link over FR > > Let me guess, on Cisco Router A you got an ARP entry for Cisco Router > B's address when you put a Cisco router in the middle, as the Cisco > router has proxy-arp enabled by default. > > Or to put it more clearly the IP addresses used FR p2p pvc is a subset > of the IP addresses used on the link between Cisco Router A and Juniper Router. > > Or on Cisco router A you have a static route without a next-hop > address to the IP subnet used on the FR link > > In either case it's a mis configuration, that gets 'saved'/'hidden' by > the fact proxy-arp is enabled by default on the Cisco router. > > /Jesper > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 04:06:31PM +0500, Farhan Jaffer wrote: > > Hi, > > > > There is an interesting situation, let me discuss the scenario > > first, > > > > Cisco Router A ----(same n/w) ---- Juniper Router -----(FR > > point-to-point pvc) ------- Cisco Router B. > > > > PVC is Active & point to point connectivity is OK. But the ping > > response from cisco router A to B via FR is unreachable & vice versa. > > > > however if i replace Juniper router with Cisco Router, it works fine. > > > > Is there any IP forwarding like thing? or any other problem. > > > > Thanks very much in advance. > > > > -FJ > > _______________________________________________ > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > /Jesper > > -- > Jesper Skriver, jesper(at)skriver(dot)dk - CCIE #5456 > > One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them, One IP to bring > them all and in the zone to bind them. > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp /Jesper -- Jesper Skriver, jesper(at)skriver(dot)dk - CCIE #5456 One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them, One IP to bring them all and in the zone to bind them. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp