Re: Help with irksome situation = ( [7:7102]
...he needs to do nat as well. he has an entire network, and only one IP address Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "Doug Lockwood" To: Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 3:32 PM Subject: RE: Help with irksome situation = ( [7:7102] > You are missing a default route to the internet. > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 206.107.237.x where x is the address of the cable > modem. > > However if the 2521 can't see it, either somthing else is wrong. > > Are the interfaces Up,Up? > > A sh ip int bri should tell the tale on the 2501. > > HTH > > Doug Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7140&t=7102 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Help with irksome situation = ( [7:7102]
Uhh, NAT perhaps!? -humboldt Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "Bob Edmonds" To: Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:50 PM Subject: Help with irksome situation = ( [7:7102] > I have this set up below: My problem is that I can not ping E0 on R2501 > from anywhere. I also cannot enter a static route to it. How would I get > the 2501 to act as a gateway between the two networks? I've done some > searches and looked over some books but I'm still not getting out through > E0. This is just a simple home lab but it is begining to irk me, any help > would be grealy appreciated. > > Internet/Cable modem > | > | > | > E0: 206.107.237.12 255.255.255.0 > R2501 > S0:172.16.20.1 255.255.255.0 > | > | > | > | > S0: 172.16.20.2 255.255.255.0 > R2521 > S1: 172.16.40.1 255.255.255.0 > | > | > | > S0: 172.16.40.2 255.255.255.0 > R2502 > > > > > > > > > Building configuration... > > Current configuration: > ! > version 11.2 > no service password-encryption > no service udp-small-servers > no service tcp-small-servers > ! > hostname Router > ! > enable secret 5 $1$aifs$0SCPCn.iDMa/ISoNcv.gH. > ! > ip dhcp-server 10.1.1.1 > ! > interface Ethernet0 > ip address 206.107.237.12 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Serial0 > ip address 172.16.20.1 255.255.255.0 > no fair-queue > ! > interface Serial1 > no ip address > shutdown > ! > no ip classless > ip route 172.16.40.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.20.2 > ! > ! > line con 0 > line aux 0 > line vty 0 4 > password > login > line vty 5 197 > password > login > ! > end Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7127&t=7102 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: low-end layer3 Catalyst [7:7093]
We. i have a True l;ayer 3 catalyst. its a cat 5 with sup III and nffc Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "Stephen Skinner" To: Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 1:29 PM Subject: Re: low-end layer3 Catalyst [7:7093] > in answer to your question ..there really isnt one... > > the 3100 does layer 2 and 3 switching but doesn`t have a REAL ios ...so no > good... > > then you have a choice of > 2948-LG3 > 3550-T12 > 4908-LG3 > > > ALL of these are expensive ...i was quoted 6K(US) 4.5k (UK) for the > 29.the rest i don`t want to hazard a guess > > anyone else??? > > > steve > > > > >From: "Adam Wang" > >Reply-To: "Adam Wang" > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: low-end layer3 Catalyst [7:7093] > >Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:53:57 -0400 > > > >Does anybody know what's the cheapest layer 3 Catalyst > >I can get. Port number doesn't matter. > > > >Thanks. > > > >Adam > > > >__ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > >a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > _ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7124&t=7093 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pix and exchange server [7:7117]
i need a sample config for a GSR, a 7513, a 7206 with 400 interfaces, a can of glue, a bottle of orange soda, and two and a half peanuts. go away, or be more precise. Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "Jose Miguel Perez" To: Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 2:35 PM Subject: pix and exchange server [7:7117] > Hello I need sample configuration for pix and exchange server ! > > jmpp Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7122&t=7117 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: as5300 e1-r2 e1-pri [7:7030]
yes Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "Eric ding" To: Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 1:21 AM Subject: as5300 e1-r2 e1-pri [7:7030] > does as5300 support the e1-r2 and e1-pri both? > i mean 1 controller for e1-r2 and the other for e1-pri at the same time! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7099&t=7030 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help [7:6571]
Uhh, the enable or enable secret? the enable pass can be decrypted, but if you have an enable secret, you're screwed, as its a non-reversible hash... Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "William Harrison" To: Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:13 AM Subject: help [7:6571] > Since I m 200 miles from the router a console connection is not possible. > And I knew that I should have put a modem on the aux port but! > > I was hoping the someone had a brut force password crack that I could run > against the enable password? > > > Thanks again > William Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6639&t=6571 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TR Int Errr [7:6112]
on a regular basis. today a funny orange light started blinking on a really expensive L# module for a Cat 4k =( Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "David Chandler" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:22 AM Subject: Re: TR Int Errr [7:6112] > 1. Swap the cables between the 2502 and 2504 (if you haven't already) > 2. Swap the ports on the MAU. > > If 1 and 2 do not work get rid of the 2502. > > Even Cisco's hardware breaks. > > HTH > > DaveC > > > RamG wrote: > > > > I have TWO routers with TR interface - 2502/2504. I am using IBM MAU. > > Connected both the routers TR int to MAU port 1 & 2. Router 2504 TR Int is > > up and running fine. I am having problem with 2502. There is no fault on > > MAU. What else could be the problem? I even changed ring speed on 2502. > > Yet it is still initializing and protocol is DOWN. I even tried changing > > media filters. Still no luck in troubleshooting. I am worried is my TR > int > > gone for good, if so, then I will have to report the defect to the seller > > ASAP. Would appreciate any help. > > > > Hello Gang - I am having problem bring up TR int. Following is the output. > > > > > > R2502#show interface tokenring0 > > > TokenRing0 is initializing, line protocol is down > > > Hardware is TMS380, address is .30ba.4a52 (bia .30ba.4a52) > > > MTU 4464 bytes, BW 16000 Kbit, DLY 630 usec, rely 255/255, load 1/255 > > > Encapsulation SNAP, loopback not set, keepalive set (10 sec) > > > ARP type: SNAP, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 > > > Ring speed: 16 Mbps > > > Duplex: half > > > Mode: Classic token ring station > > > Group Address: 0x, Functional Address: 0x0800 > > > Ethernet Transit OUI: 0x00 > > > Last input never, output never, output hang never > > > Last clearing of "show interface" counters never > > > Queueing strategy: fifo > > > Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops > > > 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec > > > 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec > > > 0 packets input, 0 bytes, 0 no buffer > > > Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles > > > 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort > > > 0 packets output, 0 bytes, 0 underruns > > > 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 54 interface resets > > > 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out > > > 59 transitions > > > > > > R2502#show config > > > Using 774 out of 32762 bytes > > > ! > > > version 12.0 > > > service timestamps debug uptime > > > service timestamps log uptime > > > no service password-encryption > > > service udp-small-servers > > > service tcp-small-servers > > > ! > > > hostname R2502 > > > ! > > > no logging console > > > enable password ram > > > ! > > > ip subnet-zero > > > no ip domain-lookup > > > ! > > > ! > > > ! > > > interface Serial0 > > > bandwidth 64 > > > no ip address > > > no ip directed-broadcast > > > encapsulation ppp > > > no ip route-cache > > > no ip mroute-cache > > > ! > > > interface Serial1 > > > bandwidth 64 > > > ip address 10.1.5.1 255.255.255.0 > > > no ip directed-broadcast > > > encapsulation ppp > > > no ip route-cache > > > no ip mroute-cache > > > ! > > > interface TokenRing0 > > > no ip address > > > no ip directed-broadcast > > > no ip route-cache > > > no ip mroute-cache > > > ring-speed 16 > > > ! > > > ip classless > > > ! > > > ! > > > line con 0 > > > transport input none > > > line aux 0 > > > transport input all > > > line vty 0 4 > > > login > > > ! > > > end > > > > Thanks / RamG > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6305&t=6112 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange Problem with router... [7:6293]
yup. thats going to happen when you plug that many serial links into the 3640. look at the mtu, look at your pps, and look at the 2640's forwarding capabilities. i have a cusdtomer who's 2640 freaks out the same way with 8 t-1s coming into it... Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "Kiran Kumar M" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 4:19 PM Subject: Strange Problem with router... [7:6293] > Hi, > > I am facing a strange problem from last two days. One of my 3640 router > is behaving in a strange manner. > > Sudenly it is becoming 60 - 99 % CPU utilization.(Usally 20 - 30 %) at the > same time It is droping the output packets on Main Serial link (which is > using for uplink/downlink) and input packets on fastethernet (Used for > LAN) port. Even these Interfaces are not overloading.. > > On the same router I am having 17 more serial links, and 1 more fast > ethernet, and one ethernet interfaces and all are in working. I am using > wccp v1, and BGP also on the same router. > > After Observing the problem I did the following things. > > 1) Increased the hold-queue to 4096 > 2) stopped the wccp > > and observed the status. But there is no use. It behaved in the same > pasion. So I kept the things back. > > I am wondering.. if anybody help me.. The traffic is same and not > varying.. but it is very much flutuating.. > > Please give me suggestions.. if anybody have any idea.. > > Thanks, > Kiran > > PS: The router is not giving this problem continuously.. for 2 mins.. its > working properly.. next 2 or 3 mins.. dropping the packets.. and next 2 > mins.. working properly.. > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6300&t=6293 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
CEF is supposed to be a FIX!? Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "David Chandler" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:06 AM Subject: Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151] > No Way!!! > > The Marketing people NEVER exagerate.:-> > > MPLS does seem like a solution to a problem that was fixed some time > ago...ie: fast-switching, CEF etc... > > > DaveC > > NRF wrote: > > > > Mr. Berkowitz, please read this post and respond. > > > > Okay, I am going to run the risk of starting a religious war here. But I > do > > have to ask, is MPLS really as great as people say? > > > > I know many people, on newsgroups and in real-life, champion MPLS as the > > perfect answer to the problems of the core Internet. Faster IP forwarding, > > traffic engineering, VPN capabilities, etc., it seems to have some powerful > > features.No doubt, this attitude is sparked by Juniper, which is using > > MPLS as a strategic weapon against Cisco, and since Juniper keeps eating > > Cisco's lunch, it stands to reason that MPLS has something to do with it. > > In fact, many network engineers treat MPLS as nothing less than the holy > > grail. > > > > But I wonder if the hype has begun to outstrip reality. > > > > For example, as a response to the LightReading test, Bill St. Arnaud of the > > Canadian carrier Canarie states "The MPLS [multiprotocol label switching] > > throughput results confirmed our suspicions that MPLS does not buy you much > > except a big management headache. True, the throughput is higher, but not > > significantly higher than IP forwarding" > > http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testing&doc_id=3909 > > > > And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of > > all networking, Radia Perlman: > > " Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, > > but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary > > searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now > > MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet > > for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering..." > > (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree > > that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. > > > > So I must ask, does MPLS really live up to all the hype? Is it really the > > greatest thing since sliced bread? How much of MPLS really is an > > improvement on today's network, and how much of it is just a bunch of > > (probably Juniper) marketing bullshi*? Has any company ever worked for a > > company that evaluated MPLS and then decided not to use it, and if so, what > > were the reasons? > > > > Thanx for all the non-flame responses > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6296&t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with hardware [7:6251]
what model router? Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "Reinhold Fischer" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:13 PM Subject: Re: Problem with hardware [7:6251] > The IOS you are using is probably not supporting this hardware. > > hth > > Reinhold > > On Tue, 29 May 2001, Sergey Konovalov wrote: > > > WIC2T + Serial WIC + Voice 2V > > > > Problem: Router cannot see its interfaces (hardware) > > show interfaces- received none > > show version - received none in hardware section > > After router booted we received: > > > > 00:00:04: %PA-2-UNDEFPA: Undefined Port Adaptor type 0 > > in bay 0 > > 00:00:04: %PA-2-UNDEFPA: Undefined Port Adaptor type > > 101 in bay 1 > > 00:00:04: %LINK-4-NOMAC: A random default MAC address > > of .0c84.1a51 has > > been chosen. Ensure that this address is unique, or > > specify MAC > > addresses for commands (such as 'novell routing') > > that allow the > > use of this address as a default. > > > > Please, help us with this problem. > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6269&t=6251 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "W. Alan Robertson" To: "Peter I. Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist" ; Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 1:39 PM Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > Peter, > > OSPF has a distance of 110, and yes, iBGP has a distance of 200. By > having seperate routing domains for North America and Europe, he could > use eBGP (Distance - 20) between his two networks. > > Distance wouldn't really do anything in this case, though, because > European routes would not be learned via OSPF (Remember, we have > theoretically split OSPF into two seperate routing domains, never the > two shall meet). > > Instead, eBGP would be bridging the gap between the two OSPF networks. > This would afford the opportunity to really take control of what > routes were advertised between the two, and excercise strict control > of the routing metrics, manipulating them in such a way as to ensure > that the best path across the pond were utilized under all normal > circumstances, but providing the redundant "less preferred" path in > the event of some kind of outage. > > Can the same be accomplished via OSPF? Yes, but because we're dealing > with Intra-area, and Inter-area routes, it may be more complex than by > simply manipulating the link costs. Remember that OSPF chooses an > Intra-area route with a Cost of 4,000,000 over an Inter-area route > with a cost of 100. That's just one of the quirks of the protocol. > > As for "Why would you want to break up an AS that small into two > seperate private ASes?", it's called thinking outside the box. ...Watch it, spanky. > We > tend to think that a small network could not be better served by > applying the same principles that we might use for a larger > environment. Why is that? Instead of letting the number of devices > determine the right solution (Or more properly, a good solution), > let's form a solution based on the specific requirements. > > A network with a small number of devices, but consisting of multiple > sites, and redundant links, presents a unique challenge. Forget the > number of devices, and look at both the physical topology, and the > problem that needs solving. BGPs powerful policy routing tools make > it a good fit for this environment, when viewed from a requirements > perspective. I think BGP is completely unecessary in this case.YES, splitting it into two ASes ans using eBGP would work (well), but i really think that modifying the path cost would be the right solution. remember that i never said eBGP wouldnt work. the initial discussion was about using BGP to do this in a SINGLE AS. ...don't get all in a tizzy, i recognize that you have a good idea. I just don't like it =P /me ducks > > It's not the only solution, but it is a valid solution, and in my > opinion, it's a good solution. > > Alan > > - Original Message - > From: "Peter I. Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist" > To: "W. Alan Robertson" ; > > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 1:02 PM > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > Absolutely, but he has traffic going from one router to another, > it's not > > ever exiting the system. > > ...why would you want to break up an AS that small into two seperate > private > > ASes? > > besides... the OSPF routes are going to take precedence, not that > the admin > > dist. cant be changed, but ospf is 120, and BGP int routes are > 200 > > (right?) > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "W. Alan Robertson" > > To: "Peter I. Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist" ; > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:42 PM > > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > Peter, > > > > > > With all due respect, he doesn't have an IGP problem... He has a > > > routing problem, and would like the ability to influence the flow > of > > > traffic under certain circumstances to provide for better network > > > performance. > > > > > > After hearing a better explanation of the real issue, path > selection > > > for an International site, the use of BGP might go a long way > toward > > > solving the issue. > > > > > > He could very simply address his issues by breaking his OSPF into > two > > > seperate routing domains, and utilizing BGP as a means of > > > inte
Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
WOOPS. Due to me being a jackass. I have been looking at your diagram incorrectly. I would think that if OSPF is configured properly, this will already be the case. Can i see your routing tables, please? preferably from all four routers. Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "Kevin Schwantz" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 11:38 AM Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > Thanks for the recommendations. Firstly, let me explain why I need the > routing to behave in such a way. The reasons are purely geographical and I > want to reduce latency. Routers A and B are in London and connected back to > back via FastEth. Routers C and D are in and SanJose and NewYork > respectively(Connected to both London routers via FR). > I certaintly won't want traffic originating from RouterA ( London ) destined > for RouterD (NewYork) to have to go to SanJose first. It would be much > better if the hop is A-B-D instead of A-C-D. > > Schwantz > > ""EA Louie"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > ... or route-map the router D network(s) to go through Router B at Router > A > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Chris Larson" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 7:24 AM > > Subject: RE: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > Place a summary route to null 0 for the networks on Router D on your > OSPF > > > routers and set the metrics appropriately for the summary route > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > > Kevin Schwantz > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:03 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > > > routerArouterB > > > AREA0AREA0 > > > || > > > routerC routerD > > > AREA1-AREA1 > > > > > > > > > Since we are on the topic of OSPF, could someone help me out on the > > scenario > > > above? > > > > > > Routers A and B have interfaces in Area 0 and Area1. I want traffic > from > > > routerA destined for routerD to go via router B. This is not the case in > > my > > > network because I realise that routerA prefers Intra-Area routes and > thus > > > would route traffic to routerD via routerC. > > > What tweaks must I make in order to force the traffic from routerA to > > > routerD to go via routerB ? Someone suggested building a GRE tunnel > > between > > > routerA and routerB and then configure the tunnel to be in AREA1. > > > > > > Any suggestions? > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > ""W. Alan Robertson"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > The actual traffic will not be routed up to area 0... Area 0 has been > > > > extended > > > > down to R2, so R2 is now a backbone router. R2 has interfaces in 3 > > areas > > > > now: > > > > Area1, Area2, and Area0 by means of it's virtual link. > > > > > > > > Any traffic originating in Area2 destined for Area1 will be routed > > > directly > > > > by > > > > R2. This satisfies the "Interarea traffic must traverse the backbone" > > > rule, > > > > because R2 *is* a backbone router. > > > > > > > > This is not theory... It is fact. > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Andrew Larkins" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 10:13 AM > > > > Subject: RE: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > > > > > > > agreedto area 0 then on to the intended area > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > From: Circusnuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: 28 May 2001 15:50 > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chuck- my answer is Yes. The traffic from the Virtual Linked > > psuedo-ABR > > > > > passes back to Area 0, before it's sent onto the intended Area (even > > if > > > > it's > > > > > directly connected). > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > > From: Chuck Larrieu > > > > > To: > > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 8:59 PM > > > > > Subject: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ever wonder what the CCIE candidates talk about on the CCIE list? > > > > > > > > > > > > The following message came through today. I thought the bright > folks > > > on > > > > > this > > > > > > list might be curious, and might want to venture an answer. > > > > > > > > > > > > Begin original question: > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if there is anybody who remembers the discussion on > Virtual > > > > > > Links in O
Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
Im thinking that route maps which increase the path cost might be your best bet. Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "Kevin Schwantz" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 11:50 AM Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > Peter, > Thanks for your input. I hope my description of the geographical topology in > another post should point out why I want my traffic to route in the manner I > have described. Taking down the link between C and D is not an option. You > mentioned Virtual links. I always thought they were used to link an area to > area 0. I don't see how it can be applied to my case. I can take the easy > way out and place all the routers in area 0 but want to use that action as > my last resort. > > kevin > > ""Peter I. Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist"" wrote in > message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > well, since C and D are in the same area they have the tame topology DB. > > they KNOW the best route to each other and are going to use it. > > the tunnel idea is kinda stupid. > > first let me ask why you would want traffic between two directly connected > > routers to NOT use that link? > > > > ...But anyway, i would suggest policy routing in this case, or if there is > a > > large traffic volume (too much for routers C and D to process switch, > make > > static routes. > > > > other options include putting C and D in their own areas, and making each > a > > stub, and get rid of that link between C and D. that would be the best > > idea... > > > > play with plath costs, > > and you might try a virtual link as well between C and D, > > but break glass only in case of emergency, if you know what i mean =P > > > > -Peter > > - Original Message - > > From: "Kevin Schwantz" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:03 AM > > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > routerArouterB > > > AREA0AREA0 > > > || > > > routerC routerD > > > AREA1-AREA1 > > > > > > > > > Since we are on the topic of OSPF, could someone help me out on the > > scenario > > > above? > > > > > > Routers A and B have interfaces in Area 0 and Area1. I want traffic > from > > > routerA destined for routerD to go via router B. This is not the case in > > my > > > network because I realise that routerA prefers Intra-Area routes and > thus > > > would route traffic to routerD via routerC. > > > What tweaks must I make in order to force the traffic from routerA to > > > routerD to go via routerB ? Someone suggested building a GRE tunnel > > between > > > routerA and routerB and then configure the tunnel to be in AREA1. > > > > > > Any suggestions? > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > ""W. Alan Robertson"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > The actual traffic will not be routed up to area 0... Area 0 has been > > > > extended > > > > down to R2, so R2 is now a backbone router. R2 has interfaces in 3 > > areas > > > > now: > > > > Area1, Area2, and Area0 by means of it's virtual link. > > > > > > > > Any traffic originating in Area2 destined for Area1 will be routed > > > directly > > > > by > > > > R2. This satisfies the "Interarea traffic must traverse the backbone" > > > rule, > > > > because R2 *is* a backbone router. > > > > > > > > This is not theory... It is fact. > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Andrew Larkins" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 10:13 AM > > > > Subject: RE: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > > > > > > > agreedto area 0 then on to the intended area > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > From: Circusnuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] &
Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
Hey he could use MPLS to do traffic engineering, actually. What kind of routers are these? =P Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "W. Alan Robertson" To: "Peter I. Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist" ; Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:42 PM Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > Peter, > > With all due respect, he doesn't have an IGP problem... He has a > routing problem, and would like the ability to influence the flow of > traffic under certain circumstances to provide for better network > performance. > > After hearing a better explanation of the real issue, path selection > for an International site, the use of BGP might go a long way toward > solving the issue. > > He could very simply address his issues by breaking his OSPF into two > seperate routing domains, and utilizing BGP as a means of > interconnecting them. He could manipulate the traffic through the use > of something as simple as AS-path prepending, or the other mechanisms > Chuck mentioned (local preference, weight, or meds). > > Routing protocols are but tools, a simple means to an end. Like all > tools, each has it's strengths and weaknesses. Most important is that > you select the right one for a given situation. In the absence of > more information, the use of BGP sounds like a pretty good solution to > the given problem. > > Alan > > - Original Message - > From: "Peter I. Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 11:29 AM > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > next time you recomend using bgp to fix an IGP problem, im going > to.., well, > > uh, just dont do it again. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6255&t=6076 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
Or use a route-map to increase the path cost... Otherwise you lose that filtered path as a backup route... Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist Network Engineer Planetary Networks 535 West 34th Street New York, NY 10001 Cell:(516) 782.1535 Desk: (646) 792.2395 Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(646) 792.2396 - Original Message - From: "David Chandler" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:00 PM Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > Have you tried an inboud distribution list on Router A's area 1 > interfaces. If router A doesn't learn the Router D routes thru those > interfaces it should then use Area 0. > > > Worth a try. > > DaveC > > Kevin Schwantz wrote: > > > > Thanks for the recommendations. Firstly, let me explain why I need the > > routing to behave in such a way. The reasons are purely geographical and I > > want to reduce latency. Routers A and B are in London and connected back to > > back via FastEth. Routers C and D are in and SanJose and NewYork > > respectively(Connected to both London routers via FR). > > I certaintly won't want traffic originating from RouterA ( London ) > destined > > for RouterD (NewYork) to have to go to SanJose first. It would be much > > better if the hop is A-B-D instead of A-C-D. > > > > Schwantz > > > > ""EA Louie"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > ... or route-map the router D network(s) to go through Router B at Router > > A > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Chris Larson" > > > To: > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 7:24 AM > > > Subject: RE: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > > > > Place a summary route to null 0 for the networks on Router D on your > > OSPF > > > > routers and set the metrics appropriately for the summary route > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > > > Kevin Schwantz > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:03 AM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > > > > > > routerArouterB > > > > AREA0AREA0 > > > > || > > > > routerC routerD > > > > AREA1-AREA1 > > > > > > > > > > > > Since we are on the topic of OSPF, could someone help me out on the > > > scenario > > > > above? > > > > > > > > Routers A and B have interfaces in Area 0 and Area1. I want traffic > > from > > > > routerA destined for routerD to go via router B. This is not the case > in > > > my > > > > network because I realise that routerA prefers Intra-Area routes and > > thus > > > > would route traffic to routerD via routerC. > > > > What tweaks must I make in order to force the traffic from routerA to > > > > routerD to go via routerB ? Someone suggested building a GRE tunnel > > > between > > > > routerA and routerB and then configure the tunnel to be in AREA1. > > > > > > > > Any suggestions? > > > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > > > > ""W. Alan Robertson"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > The actual traffic will not be routed up to area 0... Area 0 has > been > > > > > extended > > > > > down to R2, so R2 is now a backbone router. R2 has interfaces in 3 > > > areas > > > > > now: > > > > > Area1, Area2, and Area0 by means of it's virtual link. > > > > > > > > > > Any traffic originating in Area2 destined for Area1 will be routed > > > > directly > > > > > by > > > > > R2. This satisfies the "Interarea traffic must traverse the > backbone" > > > > rule, > > > > > because R2 *is* a backbone router. > > > > > > > > > > This is not theory... It is fact. > > > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > > From: "Andrew Larkins" > > > > > To: > > > > > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 10:13 AM > > > > > Subject: RE: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agreedto area 0 then on to the intended area > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > > From: Circusnuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > Sent: 28 May 2001 15:50 > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chuck- my answer is Yes. The traffic from the Virtual Linked > > > psuedo-ABR > > > > > > passes back to Area 0, before it's sent onto the intended Area > (even > > > if > > > > > it's > > > > > > directly connected). > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > > > From: Chuck Larrieu > > > > > > To: > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 8:59 PM > > > > > > Subject: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ever wonder what the CCIE candidates talk about on the CCIE list? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
Absolutely, but he has traffic going from one router to another, it's not ever exiting the system. ...why would you want to break up an AS that small into two seperate private ASes? besides... the OSPF routes are going to take precedence, not that the admin dist. cant be changed, but ospf is 120, and BGP int routes are 200 (right?) - Original Message - From: "W. Alan Robertson" To: "Peter I. Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist" ; Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:42 PM Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > Peter, > > With all due respect, he doesn't have an IGP problem... He has a > routing problem, and would like the ability to influence the flow of > traffic under certain circumstances to provide for better network > performance. > > After hearing a better explanation of the real issue, path selection > for an International site, the use of BGP might go a long way toward > solving the issue. > > He could very simply address his issues by breaking his OSPF into two > seperate routing domains, and utilizing BGP as a means of > interconnecting them. He could manipulate the traffic through the use > of something as simple as AS-path prepending, or the other mechanisms > Chuck mentioned (local preference, weight, or meds). > > Routing protocols are but tools, a simple means to an end. Like all > tools, each has it's strengths and weaknesses. Most important is that > you select the right one for a given situation. In the absence of > more information, the use of BGP sounds like a pretty good solution to > the given problem. > > Alan > > - Original Message - > From: "Peter I. Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 11:29 AM > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > next time you recomend using bgp to fix an IGP problem, im going > to.., well, > > uh, just dont do it again. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6252&t=6076 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
next time you recomend using bgp to fix an IGP problem, im going to.., well, uh, just dont do it again. - Original Message - From: "Chuck Larrieu" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:38 AM Subject: RE: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > Run BGP on all routers and manipulate the path with local preference or > weights or meds? > > Static routes? > > Change to EIGRP? > > Disconnect the link from A to C? > > Put router B into area 1? > > Sure - a tunnel will work also > > Sorry, I've been reading too many things this weekend. > > Chuck > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Kevin Schwantz > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 7:03 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > routerArouterB > AREA0AREA0 > || > routerC routerD > AREA1-AREA1 > > > Since we are on the topic of OSPF, could someone help me out on the scenario > above? > Routers A and B have interfaces in Area 0 and Area1. I want traffic from > routerA destined for routerD to go via router B. This is not the case in my > network because I realise that routerA prefers Intra-Area routes and thus > would route traffic to routerD via routerC. > What tweaks must I make in order to force the traffic from routerA to > routerD to go via routerB ? Someone suggested building a GRE tunnel between > routerA and routerB and then configure the tunnel to be in AREA1. > Any suggestions? > Kevin > > ""W. Alan Robertson"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Guys, > > > > The actual traffic will not be routed up to area 0... Area 0 has been > > extended > > down to R2, so R2 is now a backbone router. R2 has interfaces in 3 areas > > now: > > Area1, Area2, and Area0 by means of it's virtual link. > > > > Any traffic originating in Area2 destined for Area1 will be routed > directly > > by > > R2. This satisfies the "Interarea traffic must traverse the backbone" > rule, > > because R2 *is* a backbone router. > > > > This is not theory... It is fact. > > > > Alan > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Andrew Larkins" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 10:13 AM > > Subject: RE: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > agreedto area 0 then on to the intended area > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Circusnuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: 28 May 2001 15:50 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > > > Chuck- my answer is Yes. The traffic from the Virtual Linked psuedo-ABR > > > passes back to Area 0, before it's sent onto the intended Area (even if > > it's > > > directly connected). > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: Chuck Larrieu > > > To: > > > Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 8:59 PM > > > Subject: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > > > > Ever wonder what the CCIE candidates talk about on the CCIE list? > > > > > > > > The following message came through today. I thought the bright folks > on > > > this > > > > list might be curious, and might want to venture an answer. > > > > > > > > Begin original question: > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > I wonder if there is anybody who remembers the discussion on Virtual > > > > Links in OSPF. It was posted some time ago but I can't seem to find > it. > > > > > > > > The scenario was something like this: > > > > ___ ___ > > > > |Area 0 | |Area1||Area2| > > > > |R0|--| R1 |--| R2 | > > > > |__| |_||_| > > > > > > > > There is a virtual link from area 2 to Area 0 via Area1. Traffic needs > to > > > > get to R1 in Area 1 from R2 in Area 2. Assume that the virtual link > has > > to > > > > use R1 (To create the V.Link). Does the traffic flow passed R1 (in > Area > > 1) > > > > to Area 0 and then back to area 1, or does the actual flow just to R1 > > from > > > > R2. > > > > > > > > I cant remember the conclusion, and I cant seem to find it on the > > > archives. > > > > Quite interesting issues. > > > > > > > > End of original question > > > > > > > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > One IOS to forward them all. > > > > One IOS to find them. > > > > One IOS to summarize them all > > > > And in the routing table bind them. > > > > > > > > -JRR Chambers- > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > FAQ, list a
Re: WAN problem with ATM - Please help !!! [7:6212]
frame relay his inverse arp, if the admin is lazy, atm-dxi needs map statements (sometimes), which im guessing you havent made =P there is a possibility that i am speaking out of my ass on this one. -Peter Slow CCNP - Original Message - From: "Hamid" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 9:47 AM Subject: WAN problem with ATM - Please help !!! [7:6212] > Hi > > I have to 1601 Routers in 2 branch offices connecting them to a 3640 router > in a Central office over ATM. I have configured EIGRP routing and the > encapsulation is ATM-dxi. > > The is that, both of the branch offices have connectivity to the central > sites and have no problems with the central office. But the branch offices > can't see each other. > I have tested it it on the 1601 routers, none of them can see eachother. I > don't think the problem is about the ROUTING because changing the > encapsulation to FRAME-RELAY solves everything. Everything works allright > with FRAME-RELAY encapsulation. But it won't work with ATM-dxi. > > Can someone tell me please what the problem is? > > Thanks in advance > > Hamid > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6229&t=6212 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
well, since C and D are in the same area they have the tame topology DB. they KNOW the best route to each other and are going to use it. the tunnel idea is kinda stupid. first let me ask why you would want traffic between two directly connected routers to NOT use that link? ...But anyway, i would suggest policy routing in this case, or if there is a large traffic volume (too much for routers C and D to process switch, make static routes. other options include putting C and D in their own areas, and making each a stub, and get rid of that link between C and D. that would be the best idea... play with plath costs, and you might try a virtual link as well between C and D, but break glass only in case of emergency, if you know what i mean =P -Peter - Original Message - From: "Kevin Schwantz" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:03 AM Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > routerArouterB > AREA0AREA0 > || > routerC routerD > AREA1-AREA1 > > > Since we are on the topic of OSPF, could someone help me out on the scenario > above? > > Routers A and B have interfaces in Area 0 and Area1. I want traffic from > routerA destined for routerD to go via router B. This is not the case in my > network because I realise that routerA prefers Intra-Area routes and thus > would route traffic to routerD via routerC. > What tweaks must I make in order to force the traffic from routerA to > routerD to go via routerB ? Someone suggested building a GRE tunnel between > routerA and routerB and then configure the tunnel to be in AREA1. > > Any suggestions? > > Kevin > > > ""W. Alan Robertson"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Guys, > > > > The actual traffic will not be routed up to area 0... Area 0 has been > > extended > > down to R2, so R2 is now a backbone router. R2 has interfaces in 3 areas > > now: > > Area1, Area2, and Area0 by means of it's virtual link. > > > > Any traffic originating in Area2 destined for Area1 will be routed > directly > > by > > R2. This satisfies the "Interarea traffic must traverse the backbone" > rule, > > because R2 *is* a backbone router. > > > > This is not theory... It is fact. > > > > Alan > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Andrew Larkins" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 10:13 AM > > Subject: RE: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > agreedto area 0 then on to the intended area > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Circusnuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: 28 May 2001 15:50 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > > > Chuck- my answer is Yes. The traffic from the Virtual Linked psuedo-ABR > > > passes back to Area 0, before it's sent onto the intended Area (even if > > it's > > > directly connected). > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: Chuck Larrieu > > > To: > > > Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 8:59 PM > > > Subject: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076] > > > > > > > > > > Ever wonder what the CCIE candidates talk about on the CCIE list? > > > > > > > > The following message came through today. I thought the bright folks > on > > > this > > > > list might be curious, and might want to venture an answer. > > > > > > > > Begin original question: > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > I wonder if there is anybody who remembers the discussion on Virtual > > > > Links in OSPF. It was posted some time ago but I can't seem to find > it. > > > > > > > > The scenario was something like this: > > > > ___ ___ > > > > |Area 0 | |Area1||Area2| > > > > |R0|--| R1 |--| R2 | > > > > |__| |_||_| > > > > > > > > There is a virtual link from area 2 to Area 0 via Area1. Traffic needs > to > > > > get to R1 in Area 1 from R2 in Area 2. Assume that the virtual link > has > > to > > > > use R1 (To create the V.Link). Does the traffic flow passed R1 (in > Area > > 1) > > > > to Area 0 and then back to area 1, or does the actual flow just to R1 > > from > > > > R2. > > > > > > > > I cant remember the conclusion, and I cant seem to find it on the > > > archives. > > > > Quite interesting issues. > > > > > > > > End of original question > > > > > > > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > One IOS to forward them all. > > > > One IOS to find them. > > > > One IOS to summarize them all > > > > And in the routing table bind them. > > > > > > > > -JRR Chambers- > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > FAQ, li
