RE: DRAM for 2500 series [7:50572]
I have used compaq ram in mine, and they work just fine. Symon -Original Message- From: Jack Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 August 2002 04:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: DRAM for 2500 series [7:50572] I don't care about a SmartNet contract. Will a standard, fast-page with parity SIMM chip work with a 2500 series router? Am I asking for trouble if I don't get a "for Cisco 2500 series" ram? I found this chip for $6: 16 MB SIMM FAST PAGE with PARITY (4X36) 72 PIN Thanks, Jack Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50578&t=50572 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OSPF GRE tunnel to connect areas. [7:50579]
Hey team, Just playing around with OSPF and GRE tunnels and having no luck. Can anyone help? Router1's s1 interface is in area 12 as is router2's s0. Between R2 and R5 is area 51 (network 151.1.222.0/24). As you can see in order for area 12 to communicate with the rest of the ospf network it needs a virtual link beween r2 and r5. I did that and it worked. What i'm trying to do now is a GRE tunnel between r2 and r5. The tunnel is up but r1 never sees the routers that it did when the virtual-link was up. The tunnel interfaces show up can I ping the loopback on r5 from r2 and vice verase but r1 sees no ospf routes. R1--area12--R2area51--R5--area0 (150.1.2.2) (151.1.5.5) Below are the configs. Feel free to email me directly with my blunder if you so desire. r2's config - nterface Loopback0 ip address 150.1.2.2 255.255.255.0 ! interface Tunnel1 ip unnumbered Loopback0 tunnel source Loopback0 tunnel destination 150.1.5.5 ! interface Ethernet0 ip address 150.1.222.2 255.255.255.0 ! interface Serial0 ip address 150.1.12.2 255.255.255.0 clockrate 64000 ! router ospf 1 router-id 150.1.222.2 log-adjacency-changes network 150.1.12.2 0.0.0.0 area 12 network 150.1.222.2 0.0.0.0 area 51 ! ip classless ip route 150.1.5.5 255.255.255.255 Ethernet0 r5's config interface Loopback0 ip address 150.1.5.5 255.255.255.0 ! interface Tunnel0 ip unnumbered Loopback0 tunnel source Loopback0 tunnel destination 150.1.2.2 ! interface Ethernet0 ip address 150.1.222.5 255.255.255.0 ! ! router ospf 1 router-id 150.1.111.5 log-adjacency-changes network 150.1.111.5 0.0.0.0 area 0 network 150.1.222.5 0.0.0.0 area 51 ! ip classless ip route 150.1.2.2 255.255.255.255 Ethernet0 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50579&t=50579 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DRAM for 2500 series [7:50572]
Jack Lane wrote: > I found this chip for $6: 16 MB SIMM FAST PAGE with PARITY (4X36) 72 PIN Yup, that'll work just fine in a 2500. Regards, Marco. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50580&t=50572 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Routing with IP Unnumbered Loopback [7:50581]
Hi all, I am reposting this because there were no responses to the first post. I am trying to conserve IP addresses by using private IPs for dialin users. From clients I can dial in to network but cant get beyond 3640 NAS, cant even ping 3640 E0/0 LAN IP address. From 3640, I can ping Lo0 from E0/0 and vice versa; I can ping connected client on any Async sourcing Lo0, but not E0/0; and I can ping Internet hosts eg www.yahoo.com sourcing e0/0 but not loopback0. From 2611 Internet gateway, I can ping 3640 E0/0 and Lo0, but not a connected dialin user on any Async with private IP address assigned by 3640 from IP pool. I have a routing issue that makes traffic in both directions get to and disappear at 3640 Lo0, but strangely all necessary routes (that I can think of) are installed in the route tables. Can somebody pls point out what I'm missing? Below are my configs and route tables: 3640-NAS Config: interface Loopback0 ip address 192.168.200.254 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/0 ip address 216.199.175.12 255.255.255.224 ! interface Group-Async1 ip unnumbered Loopback0 peer default ip address pool PRIVATE ! router eigrp 10 network 192.168.1.0 network 192.168.200.0 network 216.199.175.0 no auto-summary ! ip local pool PRIVATE 192.168.200.41 192.168.200.88 ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 216.199.175.1 3640-NAS Route Table: Gateway of last resort is 216.199.175.1 to network 0.0.0.0 216.199.175.0/27 is subnetted, 1 subnets C 216.199.175.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0 192.168.200.0/24 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks C 192.168.200.52/32 is directly connected, Async101 C 192.168.200.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback0 192.168.1.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets D 192.168.1.0 [90/2195456] via 216.199.175.1, 00:58:16, E0/0 S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 216.199.175.1 2611-Gateway Config: interface Ethernet0/0 ip address 216.199.175.1 255.255.255.224 ! interface Serial0/0 ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.252 ! router eigrp 10 network 192.168.1.0 network 192.168.200.0 network 216.199.175.0 no auto-summary ! ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 2611-Gateway Route Table: Gateway of last resort is 192.168.1.1 to network 0.0.0.0 216.199.175.0/27 is subnetted, 1 subnets C 216.199.175.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0 192.168.200.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets D 192.168.200.0 [90/409600] via 216.199.175.12, 07:51:45, Et0/0 192.168.1.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets C 192.168.1.0 is directly connected, Serial0/0 S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 192.168.1.1 TIA Tunji _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50581&t=50581 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Routing with IP Unnumbered Loopback [7:50581]
Hi Tunji, I would remove the route statement network 192.168.1.0 from your EIGRP process on the 3640. You only enter networks that are directly connected to your router into the EIGRP process -- unless redistributing statics. I think you may also need to add the following to your async group: encapsulation ppp ip tcp header-compression passive async default routing async mode interactive ppp authentication chap group-range hope this helps. cheers, ~Ciaron - Original Message - From: "Tunji Suleiman" To: Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 10:20 AM Subject: Routing with IP Unnumbered Loopback [7:50581] > Hi all, > > I am reposting this because there were no responses to the first post. I am > trying to conserve IP addresses by using private IPs for dialin users. From > clients I can dial in to network but cant get beyond 3640 NAS, cant even > ping 3640 E0/0 LAN IP address. From 3640, I can ping Lo0 from E0/0 and vice > versa; I can ping connected client on any Async sourcing Lo0, but not E0/0; > and I can ping Internet hosts eg www.yahoo.com sourcing e0/0 but not > loopback0. From 2611 Internet gateway, I can ping 3640 E0/0 and Lo0, but not > a connected dialin user on any Async with private IP address assigned by > 3640 from IP pool. I have a routing issue that makes traffic in both > directions get to and disappear at 3640 Lo0, but strangely all necessary > routes (that I can think of) are installed in the route tables. Can somebody > pls point out what I'm missing? Below are my configs and route tables: > > 3640-NAS Config: > interface Loopback0 > ip address 192.168.200.254 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Ethernet0/0 > ip address 216.199.175.12 255.255.255.224 > ! > interface Group-Async1 > ip unnumbered Loopback0 > peer default ip address pool PRIVATE > ! > router eigrp 10 > network 192.168.1.0 > network 192.168.200.0 > network 216.199.175.0 > no auto-summary > ! > ip local pool PRIVATE 192.168.200.41 192.168.200.88 > ip classless > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 216.199.175.1 > > 3640-NAS Route Table: > Gateway of last resort is 216.199.175.1 to network 0.0.0.0 > > 216.199.175.0/27 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 216.199.175.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0 > 192.168.200.0/24 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks > C 192.168.200.52/32 is directly connected, Async101 > C 192.168.200.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback0 > 192.168.1.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets > D 192.168.1.0 [90/2195456] via 216.199.175.1, 00:58:16, E0/0 > S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 216.199.175.1 > > > 2611-Gateway Config: > interface Ethernet0/0 > ip address 216.199.175.1 255.255.255.224 > ! > interface Serial0/0 > ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.252 > ! > router eigrp 10 > network 192.168.1.0 > network 192.168.200.0 > network 216.199.175.0 > no auto-summary > ! > ip classless > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 > > 2611-Gateway Route Table: > Gateway of last resort is 192.168.1.1 to network 0.0.0.0 > > 216.199.175.0/27 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 216.199.175.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0 > 192.168.200.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets > D 192.168.200.0 [90/409600] via 216.199.175.12, 07:51:45, Et0/0 > 192.168.1.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 192.168.1.0 is directly connected, Serial0/0 > S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 192.168.1.1 > > TIA > > Tunji > > > _ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50582&t=50581 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Routing with IP Unnumbered Loopback [7:50581]
Tunji, See Inline... - Original Message - From: "Tunji Suleiman" To: Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 5:20 AM Subject: Routing with IP Unnumbered Loopback [7:50581] > Hi all, > > I am reposting this because there were no responses to the first post. I am > trying to conserve IP addresses by using private IPs for dialin users. NT: Ok, so as you mentioned you're trying to conserve IP address by using private IPs for dialin users. Question? When you make use of those private(rfc1918) addresses are they routable? >From > clients I can dial in to network but cant get beyond 3640 NAS, cant even > ping 3640 E0/0 LAN IP address. From 3640, I can ping Lo0 from E0/0 and vice > versa; I can ping connected client on any Async sourcing Lo0, but not E0/0; > and I can ping Internet hosts eg www.yahoo.com sourcing e0/0 but not > loopback0. To answer part of the question; "Yes" the outbound packet will be routable "only" because you have a 0/0 route, that will route any packet to the "next-hop" based on the static default route. We all know routing is bi-directional(I'm hoping :->), which now begs the question, "How does this private block of IPs you use get routed back to you(your network)? Will anyone in the Internet route these packets back to you? Once you answer these questions.. then check out this link! http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/556/12.html HTH Nigel >From 2611 Internet gateway, I can ping 3640 E0/0 and Lo0, but not > a connected dialin user on any Async with private IP address assigned by > 3640 from IP pool. I have a routing issue that makes traffic in both > directions get to and disappear at 3640 Lo0, but strangely all necessary > routes (that I can think of) are installed in the route tables. Can somebody > pls point out what I'm missing? Below are my configs and route tables: > > 3640-NAS Config: > interface Loopback0 > ip address 192.168.200.254 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Ethernet0/0 > ip address 216.199.175.12 255.255.255.224 > ! > interface Group-Async1 > ip unnumbered Loopback0 > peer default ip address pool PRIVATE > ! > router eigrp 10 > network 192.168.1.0 > network 192.168.200.0 > network 216.199.175.0 > no auto-summary > ! > ip local pool PRIVATE 192.168.200.41 192.168.200.88 > ip classless > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 216.199.175.1 > > 3640-NAS Route Table: > Gateway of last resort is 216.199.175.1 to network 0.0.0.0 > > 216.199.175.0/27 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 216.199.175.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0 > 192.168.200.0/24 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks > C 192.168.200.52/32 is directly connected, Async101 > C 192.168.200.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback0 > 192.168.1.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets > D 192.168.1.0 [90/2195456] via 216.199.175.1, 00:58:16, E0/0 > S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 216.199.175.1 > > > 2611-Gateway Config: > interface Ethernet0/0 > ip address 216.199.175.1 255.255.255.224 > ! > interface Serial0/0 > ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.252 > ! > router eigrp 10 > network 192.168.1.0 > network 192.168.200.0 > network 216.199.175.0 > no auto-summary > ! > ip classless > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 > > 2611-Gateway Route Table: > Gateway of last resort is 192.168.1.1 to network 0.0.0.0 > > 216.199.175.0/27 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 216.199.175.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0 > 192.168.200.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets > D 192.168.200.0 [90/409600] via 216.199.175.12, 07:51:45, Et0/0 > 192.168.1.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 192.168.1.0 is directly connected, Serial0/0 > S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 192.168.1.1 > > TIA > > Tunji > > > _ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50583&t=50581 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF GRE tunnel to connect areas. [7:50579]
it's working. Had a couple of issues.
First off, forgot to put my area 0 authentication on the tunnel. I
also had my tunnel source/destinations mixed up
Does anyone have any good notes they've taken on Tunnels?
below is the config for r2
interface Tunnel1
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.252
ip ospf authentication
ip ospf authentication-key cisco
tunnel source Ethernet0
tunnel destination 150.1.222.5
and r5
interface Tunnel0
ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.252
ip ospf authentication
ip ospf authentication-key cisco
tunnel source Ethernet0
tunnel destination 150.1.222.2
!
r5(#on
Neighbor ID Pri State Dead Time Address
Interface
150.1.222.2 1 FULL/DROTHER00:00:37150.1.222.2
Ethernet0
150.1.222.6 1 FULL/DR 00:00:39150.1.222.6
Ethernet0
150.1.111.3 1 FULL/DR 00:01:50150.1.111.3
Serial0
150.1.222.2 1 FULL/ -00:00:34192.168.1.1
Tunnel0
Tim
On 3 Aug 2002 08:31:20 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Timothy Ouellette")
wrote:
>Hey team,
>
>Just playing around with OSPF and GRE tunnels and having no luck. Can
>anyone help?
>
>Router1's s1 interface is in area 12 as is router2's s0. Between R2
>and R5 is area 51
>(network 151.1.222.0/24). As you can see in order for area 12 to
>communicate with the rest
>of the ospf network it needs a virtual link beween r2 and r5. I did
>that and it worked.
>
>What i'm trying to do now is a GRE tunnel between r2 and r5. The tunnel
>is up but r1 never
>sees the routers that it did when the virtual-link was up. The tunnel
>interfaces show up
>can I ping the loopback on r5 from r2 and vice verase but r1 sees no
>ospf routes.
>
>
>R1--area12--R2area51--R5--area0
> (150.1.2.2) (151.1.5.5)
>
>
>Below are the configs. Feel free to email me directly with my blunder
>if you so desire.
>
>
>r2's config
>-
>nterface Loopback0
> ip address 150.1.2.2 255.255.255.0
>!
>interface Tunnel1
> ip unnumbered Loopback0
> tunnel source Loopback0
> tunnel destination 150.1.5.5
>!
>interface Ethernet0
> ip address 150.1.222.2 255.255.255.0
>!
>interface Serial0
> ip address 150.1.12.2 255.255.255.0
> clockrate 64000
>!
>router ospf 1
> router-id 150.1.222.2
> log-adjacency-changes
> network 150.1.12.2 0.0.0.0 area 12
> network 150.1.222.2 0.0.0.0 area 51
>!
>ip classless
>ip route 150.1.5.5 255.255.255.255 Ethernet0
>
>
>r5's config
>
>interface Loopback0
> ip address 150.1.5.5 255.255.255.0
>!
>interface Tunnel0
> ip unnumbered Loopback0
> tunnel source Loopback0
> tunnel destination 150.1.2.2
>!
>interface Ethernet0
> ip address 150.1.222.5 255.255.255.0
>!
>!
>router ospf 1
> router-id 150.1.111.5
> log-adjacency-changes
> network 150.1.111.5 0.0.0.0 area 0
> network 150.1.222.5 0.0.0.0 area 51
>!
>ip classless
>ip route 150.1.2.2 255.255.255.255 Ethernet0
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50584&t=50579
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: DRAM for 2500 series [7:50572]
Actually I just put 32mg from Compaq on my 3600r and it works fine to Juan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Symon Thurlow Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 4:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: DRAM for 2500 series [7:50572] I have used compaq ram in mine, and they work just fine. Symon -Original Message- From: Jack Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 August 2002 04:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: DRAM for 2500 series [7:50572] I don't care about a SmartNet contract. Will a standard, fast-page with parity SIMM chip work with a 2500 series router? Am I asking for trouble if I don't get a "for Cisco 2500 series" ram? I found this chip for $6: 16 MB SIMM FAST PAGE with PARITY (4X36) 72 PIN Thanks, Jack Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50585&t=50572 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RIP/IGRP Routing Simulator? [7:50586]
What I am looking for is a Windows program that I can connect to a Cisco router that will send out RIP routing updates. Would love to send out a a group of 5 to 10different routes to illustrate routing without using loopback addresses. If I need to use loopbacks I will but would prefer the routes were coming into the rouing environment from an external source rather than an internal router. I figure it won't be hard to get a RIP simulator, I really don't expect to get anything that will send IGRP routing information because of the propritary nature of IGRP. Thanks, Kevin Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50586&t=50586 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP Route Reflectors? [7:50573]
So an IBGP router within a network must be fully meshed with all other IBGP routers in the network. If the scenarios was such that I had 5 edge routers running both IBGP and OSPF, and 40 others routers somewhere in the middle of these running only OSPF, that I would need all 5 IBGP routers to be fully meshed? Physically fully meshed ot logically fully meshed? ""Robert D. Cluett"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Group, > > In reading the BSCN book, I have stumbled across something confusing when it > is discussing "route reflectors". The books states that the use of route > reflectors eliminates the need to run BGP in a full mesh environment. Based > on this statement I have assumed that BGP therefore must be configured only > on a network that is fully meshed (unless route reflectors are used). Is > this true? > > Robert D. Cluett, CCNA Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50587&t=50573 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ACS & PIX [7:50589]
Dear all, Why not the usage time in the user property not increased when I pass through the PIX which get Authentication & Authorization and send accounting to ACS? Not like the dialup access? The version of ACS is 3.0 and I have PIX 515. Thanks for your response. -- Mohannad N. Khuffash Network Administrator Palestine Telecommunication Company Tel: 00972-02-2982330 Fax:00972-02-2980235 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50589&t=50589 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP Route Reflectors? [7:50573]
The statement in the book means that either all IBGP peers are fully meshed ( which is a logical mesh not mandatory a physical one ), or use Route Reflectors to reduce the number of IBGP sessions needed. For example, if you have 10 routers that want to run IBGP over, those 10 routers doesn't have to have direct physical connections from each router to the others to initiate this Full Mesh - logical - IBGP sessions. Another example, we can have a full logical IBGP sessions between those 3 routers which are Ra-Rb, Ra-Rc, Rb-Rc while not having a full physical mesh ( Ra & Rc are not directly physically connected together ) RouterA--RouterB---RouterC >Group, > >In reading the BSCN book, I have stumbled across something confusing when it >is discussing "route reflectors". The books states that the use of route >reflectors eliminates the need to run BGP in a full mesh environment. Based >on this statement I have assumed that BGP therefore must be configured only >on a network that is fully meshed (unless route reflectors are used). Is >this true? > >Robert D. Cluett, CCNA > > > > misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50591&t=50573 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LANE Information [7:50420]
Actually, I though the LANE section of Caslow's book was pretty good. Mike W. "Neil Borne" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Does anyone know where I get can get some "straight forward" LANE > information? > > Thanks, > > > P. Neil Borne, CCDA,CCNP,C-voice and CWNA > Systems Integrator III > > > _ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50592&t=50420 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BGP: RIB-failure [7:50593]
What is the RIB-failure listed as a Status below? This was taken from a router that runs one EBGP and two IBGP sessions. Some of the internal routes come from two IBGP peers. The IBGP peers are pretty near identical in config, each presenting a single /24, one makes it, the other fails. By failure I mean the route shows up with a leading 'r' and it doesn't get presented to the EBGP peer, thusly the block doesn't make it to global BGP table. I'd be perfectly happy if someone could define RIB-failure for me ... cisco.com is strangely quiet on the topic. BGP table version is 94, local router ID is 63.170.237.254 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next HopMetric LocPrf Weight Path *> 12.36.200.0/23 12.22.183.1930 0 20333 i *> 12.36.210.0/23 12.22.183.1930 0 20333 i *> 12.108.204.0/22 12.22.183.1930 0 20333 i *> 12.108.206.0/24 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i *> 12.108.207.0/24 12.108.207.150 20 32768 i * i 63.170.238.254 0100 0 i *> 63.170.237.0/24 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i * i63.170.238.0/24 63.170.238.254 0100 0 i *> 12.108.207.150 20 32768 i *>i63.170.239.0/24 63.170.239.254 0100 0 i -- Neal Rauhauser CCNP, CCDP voice: 402-301-9555 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] fcc : k0bsd "This is my private email devoted to various mailing lists. If you're a twerp with an attorney and someone else's money, don't bother my employer about the things I say, just come see me personally and we'll discuss the situation. No names, you twerps should know who you are". Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50593&t=50593 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP Route Reflectors? [7:50573]
Wow...making sense now! One more question... So an IBGP session as stated in the book, is made by use of the neighbor command. Either, you have your directly connected neighbors defined in each router or, you have the use of route reflectors? The only way you can defined a neighbor that is more than one hop (router) away is by using the multihop command? Is this true? You can tell I have never seen BGP in a production environment (BGP is drastically different than what I am used to being, OSPF). ""YASSER ALY"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > The statement in the book means that either all IBGP peers are fully > meshed ( which is a logical mesh not mandatory a physical one ), or use > Route Reflectors to reduce the number of IBGP sessions needed. > > For example, if you have 10 routers that want to run IBGP over, those > 10 routers doesn't have to have direct physical connections from each > router to the others to initiate this Full Mesh - logical - IBGP > sessions. > > > > Another example, we can have a full logical IBGP sessions between those > 3 routers > > which are Ra-Rb, Ra-Rc, Rb-Rc while not having a full physical mesh ( Ra > & Rc are not directly physically connected together ) > > RouterA--RouterB---RouterC > > > > > > >Group, > > > >In reading the BSCN book, I have stumbled across something confusing > when it >is discussing "route reflectors". The books states that the use > of route >reflectors eliminates the need to run BGP in a full mesh > environment. Based >on this statement I have assumed that BGP therefore > must be configured only >on a network that is fully meshed (unless route > reflectors are used). Is >this true? > >Robert D. Cluett, CCNA > > > > > misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50594&t=50573 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP Route Reflectors? [7:50573]
Robert, At 03:48 PM 8/3/2002 +, Robert D. Cluett wrote: >Wow...making sense now! One more question... > >So an IBGP session as stated in the book, is made by use of the neighbor >command. Either, you have your directly connected neighbors defined in each >router or, you have the use of route reflectors? The only way you can >defined a neighbor that is more than one hop (router) away is by using the >multihop command? Is this true? IBGP does not require the use of multihop and indeed, it is quite normal for IBGP neighbors to be more than one hop away. Most folks peer to loopback address which eliminates the possibility of directly connected IBGP connections. EBGP on the other hand assumes link local connectivity and sends packets with a TTL of 1. Mutlihop allows you to extend the value of the TTL beyond 1 toward 254 to allow for non link local peering. >You can tell I have never seen BGP in a production environment (BGP is >drastically different than what I am used to being, OSPF). > >""YASSER ALY"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > The statement in the book means that either all IBGP peers are fully > > meshed ( which is a logical mesh not mandatory a physical one ), or use > > Route Reflectors to reduce the number of IBGP sessions needed. > > > > For example, if you have 10 routers that want to run IBGP over, those > > 10 routers doesn't have to have direct physical connections from each > > router to the others to initiate this Full Mesh - logical - IBGP > > sessions. > > > > > > > > Another example, we can have a full logical IBGP sessions between those > > 3 routers > > > > which are Ra-Rb, Ra-Rc, Rb-Rc while not having a full physical mesh ( Ra > > & Rc are not directly physically connected together ) > > > > RouterA--RouterB---RouterC > > > > > > > > > > > > >Group, > > > > > >In reading the BSCN book, I have stumbled across something confusing > > when it >is discussing "route reflectors". The books states that the use > > of route >reflectors eliminates the need to run BGP in a full mesh > > environment. Based >on this statement I have assumed that BGP therefore > > must be configured only >on a network that is fully meshed (unless route > > reflectors are used). Is >this true? > >Robert D. Cluett, CCNA > > > > > > misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50595&t=50573 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RIP/IGRP Routing Simulator? [7:50586]
A protocol analyzer would let you generate packets. Capture some RIP and IGRP updatess so you know what they look like, change and add network numbers, and then send them out again. A good analyzer will recalculate the IP checksum for you. (Also, the UDP checksum in the case of RIP). Of course, if you could afford a good analyzer, you could afford some new routers too, though! ;-) Does anyone know if the free analyzers like Etherreal will let you generate packets? Priscilla Sparky Nelson wrote: > > What I am looking for is a Windows program that I can connect > to a Cisco > router that will send out RIP routing updates. Would love to > send out a a > group of 5 to 10different routes to illustrate routing without > using > loopback addresses. If I need to use loopbacks I will but would > prefer the > routes were coming into the rouing environment from an external > source > rather than an internal router. I figure it won't be hard to > get a RIP > simulator, I really don't expect to get anything that will send > IGRP routing > information because of the propritary nature of IGRP. > > Thanks, > > Kevin > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50597&t=50586 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Cisco Press OSPF? [7:50567]
Do you already have Routing TCP/IP, Volume 1 by Doyle? It does a great job with OSPF. Priscilla Robert D. Cluett wrote: > > All, > > Looking for a book that will cover OSPF in detail outside of > the BSCN book. > I recently purchased "Internet Routing Architectures" to give > me more > detailed knowledge of BGP, but need to round out the OSPF with > another book. > Any advice? > > Thanks > Rob Cluett, CCNA > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50598&t=50567 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CSPFA [7:50596]
Any recommendation for CSPFA exam? How do you rate Boson test exams? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50596&t=50596 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RIP/IGRP Routing Simulator? [7:50586]
Boson has a RIP Route Generator utility available for free download http://www.boson.com/promo/utilities.htm#utilities HTH Stefan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sparky Nelson Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 9:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RIP/IGRP Routing Simulator? [7:50586] What I am looking for is a Windows program that I can connect to a Cisco router that will send out RIP routing updates. Would love to send out a a group of 5 to 10different routes to illustrate routing without using loopback addresses. If I need to use loopbacks I will but would prefer the routes were coming into the rouing environment from an external source rather than an internal router. I figure it won't be hard to get a RIP simulator, I really don't expect to get anything that will send IGRP routing information because of the propritary nature of IGRP. Thanks, Kevin Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50588&t=50586 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: VPN not connecting [7:50144]
His issue would not be caused by ISP. Phase 1 and phase 2 are both using udp500, so if he passes phase 1 then udp 500 is open. "sysopt connect permit-ipsec" will also not cause phase 2 to fail. If you are missing "sysopt connect permit-ipsec" then you'll see that the tunnel is up, but you are unable to pass traffic across of it. There is something else is going on in his case and debugs didn't show it. That's why I asked debugs from both ends at the same time... -- Lidiya White -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ciaron Gogarty Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 7:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: VPN not connecting [7:50144] Hi Silju, I would have to disagree with you one point, or perhaps modify your statement -- "Normally" ISP's don't filter IPSEC, but some do -- I know this from personal experience. Granted the ISP in question didn't know they were doing it (misconfigured access-list). I remember reading somewhere that some ISP's were going to actively filter IPSEC transiting their AS. This may or may not be true.. does anybody on the group know for sure??? Either way, it may be prudent to check with his upstream ISP!! Although your correct in saying that most VPN's terminate at secure or wholly trusted sites, this is not always the case. Suppose you wanted to also extend your VPN to a support company for a particular server app, your corporate policy may not like that fact that you cannot actively control what is sent through the tunnel. Sure you can make sure a reply will only go back to a destination address defined as "interesting" in your return access list.. but those packest are still coming from his side of the VPN and entering your network... so in that case, you could turn off the sysopt connect permit-ipsec and use access-lists on the outside to filter the traffic before it enters the network. I could be wrong, but that is my understanding of the pix implementation of IPSEC... does anybody know for sure?? cheers dude, Ciaron - Original Message - From: "Silju Pillai" To: Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 10:18 PM Subject: RE: VPN not connecting [7:50144] > HI Ciaron, > > I totally agree with you that Phase-1 is completed in Mike's setup. > But I would like to discuss some points. The problem I think is in phase-2 > only. > > 1. Normally if your end-to-end traffic has to pass the ISP (public network) > then you create a VPN tunnel. ISPs doesnt block any traffic or ports (500,50 > or 51). If at all you are blocking these ports it will be at customer site. > > 2. You are right that "sysopt connection permit-ipsec" should be given on > PIX to allow the IPSec traffic. But I assume Mike might hvae already tried > that. Thanks a lot for this information as I never thought of turning it off > and testing it. I just had a look at the cisco site regarding this info. > Which is better? Turn it off and permit the specific ports or give this > command and let PIX do the rest. > > 3. You define interesting traffic only for those networks or machines where > you want to communicate using private network securely. So there is no point > in filtering the traffic. Configure access-list so that only specific > traffic is permitted. If the traffic doesnt match the crypto access list how > the packets will enter into the network? In my opinion they will get > dropped. Hope you get me. > > thanks once again, > regards > Silju Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50599&t=50144 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Routing with IP Unnumbered Loopback [7:50581]
Thanks Ciaron and Nigel, I removed the route statements network 192.168.200.0 and network 192.168.1.0 from the 2611 and 3640 respectively, without any effect on the route tables. Apparently, the eigrp process informs the routers of the connected networks on the far sides of each other, making the network statements unnecessary. I posted the most relevant parts of the configs, assuming it will be obvious that my ppp config is ok, since I can dialin to the 3640. The 3640 is a production NAS connecting users b4 with a global IP pool. I would have configured NAT on the 2611 Internet gateway, but even that has rfc1918 address on the serial link to the Internet. What I did was configure NAT on the 3640, making the LoO the inside and E0/0 the outside. But even that is not working, with traffic both ways ending at Lo0. If I can get a dialin user on the async line to ping e0/0 of the 3640, then the issue should be resolved. TIA >From: "Nigel Taylor" >Reply-To: "Nigel Taylor" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Routing with IP Unnumbered Loopback [7:50581] >Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 10:17:44 GMT > >Tunji, > See Inline... > >- Original Message - >From: "Tunji Suleiman" >To: >Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 5:20 AM >Subject: Routing with IP Unnumbered Loopback [7:50581] > > > > Hi all, > > > > I am reposting this because there were no responses to the first post. I >am > > trying to conserve IP addresses by using private IPs for dialin users. > >NT: Ok, so as you mentioned you're trying to conserve IP address by using >private IPs for dialin users. Question? When you make use of those >private(rfc1918) addresses are they routable? > > >From > > clients I can dial in to network but cant get beyond 3640 NAS, cant even > > ping 3640 E0/0 LAN IP address. From 3640, I can ping Lo0 from E0/0 and >vice > > versa; I can ping connected client on any Async sourcing Lo0, but not >E0/0; > > and I can ping Internet hosts eg www.yahoo.com sourcing e0/0 but not > > loopback0. > >To answer part of the question; "Yes" the outbound packet will be routable >"only" >because you have a 0/0 route, that will route any packet to the "next-hop" >based on >the static default route. We all know routing is bi-directional(I'm hoping >:->), which >now begs the question, "How does this private block of IPs you use get >routed back to >you(your network)? Will anyone in the Internet route these packets back to >you? > >Once you answer these questions.. then check out this link! >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/556/12.html > > >HTH > >Nigel > > >From 2611 Internet gateway, I can ping 3640 E0/0 and Lo0, but not > > a connected dialin user on any Async with private IP address assigned by > > 3640 from IP pool. I have a routing issue that makes traffic in both > > directions get to and disappear at 3640 Lo0, but strangely all necessary > > routes (that I can think of) are installed in the route tables. Can >somebody > > pls point out what I'm missing? Below are my configs and route tables: > > > > 3640-NAS Config: > > interface Loopback0 > > ip address 192.168.200.254 255.255.255.0 > > ! > > interface Ethernet0/0 > > ip address 216.199.175.12 255.255.255.224 > > ! > > interface Group-Async1 > > ip unnumbered Loopback0 > > peer default ip address pool PRIVATE > > ! > > router eigrp 10 > > network 192.168.1.0 > > network 192.168.200.0 > > network 216.199.175.0 > > no auto-summary > > ! > > ip local pool PRIVATE 192.168.200.41 192.168.200.88 > > ip classless > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 216.199.175.1 > > > > 3640-NAS Route Table: > > Gateway of last resort is 216.199.175.1 to network 0.0.0.0 > > > > 216.199.175.0/27 is subnetted, 1 subnets > > C 216.199.175.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0 > > 192.168.200.0/24 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks > > C 192.168.200.52/32 is directly connected, Async101 > > C 192.168.200.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback0 > > 192.168.1.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets > > D 192.168.1.0 [90/2195456] via 216.199.175.1, 00:58:16, E0/0 > > S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 216.199.175.1 > > > > > > 2611-Gateway Config: > > interface Ethernet0/0 > > ip address 216.199.175.1 255.255.255.224 > > ! > > interface Serial0/0 > > ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.252 > > ! > > router eigrp 10 > > network 192.168.1.0 > > network 192.168.200.0 > > network 216.199.175.0 > > no auto-summary > > ! > > ip classless > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 > > > > 2611-Gateway Route Table: > > Gateway of last resort is 192.168.1.1 to network 0.0.0.0 > > > > 216.199.175.0/27 is subnetted, 1 subnets > > C 216.199.175.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0 > > 192.168.200.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets > > D 192.168.200.0 [90/409600] via 216.199.175.12, 07:51:45, Et0/0 > > 192.168.1.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets > > C 192.168.1.0 is directly connected, Serial0/0 > > S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 192.168.1.1 > > > > TIA > > > > Tunji > > > >
Re: RIB-failure [7:50593]
well, the search can get a bit tricky, but http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cavs/122t cavs.htm does this sound like your situation? or rather - your IOS version? (begin quote from CCO) Resolved Caveats-Cisco IOS Release 12.2(8)T2 Cisco IOS Release 12.2(8)T2 is a rebuild release for Cisco IOS Release 12.2(8)T. The caveats in this section are resolved in Cisco IOS Release 12.2(8)T2 but may be open in previous Cisco IOS releases. CSCdw84776 When a customer edge (CE) router advertises a route that contains the provider edge (PE)-CE link, the PE router fails to install this route to the virtual private network routing/forwarding instance (VRF) because the route is already registered in the VRF as a connected route. If the connected route is learned from the redistribution of connected routes to the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) through the external Border Gateway Protocol (eBGP), the BGP on the PE router marks the route with Routing Information Base (RIB) failure and prevents the route from being advertised to other peer internal Border Gateway Protocol (iBGP) PE routers. This behavior causes a loss of connectivity from the local connected route to the remote sites. Workaround: Source the route on the PE router. Do not allow the CE router to advertise the route that connects the PE and the CE routers. This condition does not occur if eBGP is not configured between the CE and PE routers and if a routing protocol such as the VRF, Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), Open Shortest Path First (OSPF), or Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is used. ( end of quote from CCO ) ""Neal Rauhauser"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > What is the RIB-failure listed as a Status below? This was taken from > a router that runs one EBGP and two IBGP sessions. Some of the internal > routes come from two IBGP peers. The IBGP peers are pretty near > identical in config, each presenting a single /24, one makes it, the > other fails. By failure I mean the route shows up with a leading 'r' and > it doesn't get presented to the EBGP peer, thusly the block doesn't make > it to global BGP table. > > I'd be perfectly happy if someone could define RIB-failure for me ... > cisco.com is strangely quiet on the topic. > > BGP table version is 94, local router ID is 63.170.237.254 > Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - > internal, > r RIB-failure > Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete > >Network Next HopMetric LocPrf Weight Path > *> 12.36.200.0/23 12.22.183.1930 0 20333 i > *> 12.36.210.0/23 12.22.183.1930 0 20333 i > *> 12.108.204.0/22 12.22.183.1930 0 20333 i > *> 12.108.206.0/24 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i > *> 12.108.207.0/24 12.108.207.150 20 32768 i > * i 63.170.238.254 0100 0 i > *> 63.170.237.0/24 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i > * i63.170.238.0/24 63.170.238.254 0100 0 i > *> 12.108.207.150 20 32768 i > *>i63.170.239.0/24 63.170.239.254 0100 0 i > > -- > Neal Rauhauser CCNP, CCDP voice: 402-301-9555 > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] fcc : k0bsd > "This is my private email devoted to various mailing lists. If you're > a twerp with an attorney and someone else's money, don't bother my > employer about the things I say, just come see me personally and we'll > discuss the situation. No names, you twerps should know who you are". Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50601&t=50593 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIP/IGRP Routing Simulator? [7:50586]
- Original Message - From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" To: Sent: 03 August 2002 1:47 pm Subject: RE: RIP/IGRP Routing Simulator? [7:50586] > A protocol analyzer would let you generate packets. Capture some RIP and > IGRP updatess so you know what they look like, change and add network > numbers, and then send them out again. A good analyzer will recalculate the > IP checksum for you. (Also, the UDP checksum in the case of RIP). If the pc/microcomputer you were planning on using is expendable, you might consider putting a unix variant on it, as the range of available simulators is a bit larger. Both the simulator & the analyzer approach aren't much help with at least one part of the certification preparation process: altering configuration parameters on the cisco IS & verifying that the packet structure & content match the expectations you are developing. Even in the case of proprietary routing protocols, it remains an open question whether or not the behavior of the vendor's software & hardware match the descriptions set forth in the specification (As usual, the proprietary specifications themselves remain closed). In the case of allegedly open standards, enough details are left up to the vendor that this kind of hands-on research is essential in order to avoid hitting a tinted-glass ceiling as far as a deep understanding of networking is concerned, which is itself nearly essential when in the midst of a supply glut. I suspect the standards themselves are similarly partially disassociated with the principles that undergird them, but I lack examples. > Of course, if you could afford a good analyzer, you could afford some new > routers too, though! ;-) Does anyone know if the free analyzers like > Etherreal will let you generate packets? As far as ethereal is concerned, not as of the spring 2002 version. > Priscilla > > > Sparky Nelson wrote: > > > > What I am looking for is a Windows program that I can connect > > to a Cisco > > router that will send out RIP routing updates. Would love to > > send out a a > > group of 5 to 10different routes to illustrate routing without > > using > > loopback addresses. If I need to use loopbacks I will but would > > prefer the > > routes were coming into the rouing environment from an external > > source > > rather than an internal router. I figure it won't be hard to > > get a RIP > > simulator, I really don't expect to get anything that will send > > IGRP routing > > information because of the propritary nature of IGRP. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Kevin Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50602&t=50586 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Routing with IP Unnumbered Loopback [7:50581]
Tunji, The network commands that you removed were simply useless, it is normal that they did not have any impact on your routing table. Question: Is that normal that the ip address range of the async group is the same as your loopback. Both are in the 192.168.200.0/24 range. Why don't you just try to use another address in a different subnet for your loopback, advertise in your eigrp process and see what happens. Just curious. Regards, DT ""Tunji Suleiman"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi all, > > I am reposting this because there were no responses to the first post. I am > trying to conserve IP addresses by using private IPs for dialin users. From > clients I can dial in to network but cant get beyond 3640 NAS, cant even > ping 3640 E0/0 LAN IP address. From 3640, I can ping Lo0 from E0/0 and vice > versa; I can ping connected client on any Async sourcing Lo0, but not E0/0; > and I can ping Internet hosts eg www.yahoo.com sourcing e0/0 but not > loopback0. From 2611 Internet gateway, I can ping 3640 E0/0 and Lo0, but not > a connected dialin user on any Async with private IP address assigned by > 3640 from IP pool. I have a routing issue that makes traffic in both > directions get to and disappear at 3640 Lo0, but strangely all necessary > routes (that I can think of) are installed in the route tables. Can somebody > pls point out what I'm missing? Below are my configs and route tables: > > 3640-NAS Config: > interface Loopback0 > ip address 192.168.200.254 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Ethernet0/0 > ip address 216.199.175.12 255.255.255.224 > ! > interface Group-Async1 > ip unnumbered Loopback0 > peer default ip address pool PRIVATE > ! > router eigrp 10 > network 192.168.1.0 > network 192.168.200.0 > network 216.199.175.0 > no auto-summary > ! > ip local pool PRIVATE 192.168.200.41 192.168.200.88 > ip classless > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 216.199.175.1 > > 3640-NAS Route Table: > Gateway of last resort is 216.199.175.1 to network 0.0.0.0 > > 216.199.175.0/27 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 216.199.175.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0 > 192.168.200.0/24 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks > C 192.168.200.52/32 is directly connected, Async101 > C 192.168.200.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback0 > 192.168.1.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets > D 192.168.1.0 [90/2195456] via 216.199.175.1, 00:58:16, E0/0 > S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 216.199.175.1 > > > 2611-Gateway Config: > interface Ethernet0/0 > ip address 216.199.175.1 255.255.255.224 > ! > interface Serial0/0 > ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.252 > ! > router eigrp 10 > network 192.168.1.0 > network 192.168.200.0 > network 216.199.175.0 > no auto-summary > ! > ip classless > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 > > 2611-Gateway Route Table: > Gateway of last resort is 192.168.1.1 to network 0.0.0.0 > > 216.199.175.0/27 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 216.199.175.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0 > 192.168.200.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets > D 192.168.200.0 [90/409600] via 216.199.175.12, 07:51:45, Et0/0 > 192.168.1.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 192.168.1.0 is directly connected, Serial0/0 > S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 192.168.1.1 > > TIA > > Tunji > > > _ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50603&t=50581 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP Route Reflectors? [7:50573]
I guess that one must look at IBGP and EBGP as two different protocols then...I think that is where a lot of my confusion has come in! Thanks to everyone for the help. ""Peter van Oene"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Robert, > > At 03:48 PM 8/3/2002 +, Robert D. Cluett wrote: > >Wow...making sense now! One more question... > > > >So an IBGP session as stated in the book, is made by use of the neighbor > >command. Either, you have your directly connected neighbors defined in each > >router or, you have the use of route reflectors? The only way you can > >defined a neighbor that is more than one hop (router) away is by using the > >multihop command? Is this true? > > IBGP does not require the use of multihop and indeed, it is quite normal > for IBGP neighbors to be more than one hop away. Most folks peer to > loopback address which eliminates the possibility of directly connected > IBGP connections. EBGP on the other hand assumes link local connectivity > and sends packets with a TTL of 1. Mutlihop allows you to extend the value > of the TTL beyond 1 toward 254 to allow for non link local peering. > > > > > >You can tell I have never seen BGP in a production environment (BGP is > >drastically different than what I am used to being, OSPF). > > > >""YASSER ALY"" wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > The statement in the book means that either all IBGP peers are fully > > > meshed ( which is a logical mesh not mandatory a physical one ), or use > > > Route Reflectors to reduce the number of IBGP sessions needed. > > > > > > For example, if you have 10 routers that want to run IBGP over, those > > > 10 routers doesn't have to have direct physical connections from each > > > router to the others to initiate this Full Mesh - logical - IBGP > > > sessions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Another example, we can have a full logical IBGP sessions between those > > > 3 routers > > > > > > which are Ra-Rb, Ra-Rc, Rb-Rc while not having a full physical mesh ( Ra > > > & Rc are not directly physically connected together ) > > > > > > RouterA--RouterB---RouterC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Group, > > > > > > > >In reading the BSCN book, I have stumbled across something confusing > > > when it >is discussing "route reflectors". The books states that the use > > > of route >reflectors eliminates the need to run BGP in a full mesh > > > environment. Based >on this statement I have assumed that BGP therefore > > > must be configured only >on a network that is fully meshed (unless route > > > reflectors are used). Is >this true? > >Robert D. Cluett, CCNA > > > > > > > misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50604&t=50573 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco Press OSPF? [7:50567]
Nope, don't have the TCP/IP Volume 1 yet. I assumed that it would be no more detailed than the BSCN book. If it is comprehensive, do you also feel it is a better fit than the other two OSPF books by Cisco? ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Do you already have Routing TCP/IP, Volume 1 by Doyle? It does a great job > with OSPF. > > Priscilla > > Robert D. Cluett wrote: > > > > All, > > > > Looking for a book that will cover OSPF in detail outside of > > the BSCN book. > > I recently purchased "Internet Routing Architectures" to give > > me more > > detailed knowledge of BGP, but need to round out the OSPF with > > another book. > > Any advice? > > > > Thanks > > Rob Cluett, CCNA Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50605&t=50567 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF GRE tunnel to connect areas. [7:50579]
Hello, if there is one thing that i do at the very very end, that's the configuration of password on ospf, bgp, ntp and ... name it. I try it first without password and if it works i then apply the password. The problem should be split in small blocks, configuration of the tunnel being one, configuration of the tunnel with authentication being the second one. It is always easier to solve. Salut, DT [EMAIL PROTECTED] ""Timothy Ouellette"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hey team, > > Just playing around with OSPF and GRE tunnels and having no luck. Can > anyone help? > > Router1's s1 interface is in area 12 as is router2's s0. Between R2 > and R5 is area 51 > (network 151.1.222.0/24). As you can see in order for area 12 to > communicate with the rest > of the ospf network it needs a virtual link beween r2 and r5. I did > that and it worked. > > What i'm trying to do now is a GRE tunnel between r2 and r5. The tunnel > is up but r1 never > sees the routers that it did when the virtual-link was up. The tunnel > interfaces show up > can I ping the loopback on r5 from r2 and vice verase but r1 sees no > ospf routes. > > > R1--area12--R2area51--R5--area0 >(150.1.2.2) (151.1.5.5) > > > Below are the configs. Feel free to email me directly with my blunder > if you so desire. > > > r2's config > - > nterface Loopback0 > ip address 150.1.2.2 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Tunnel1 > ip unnumbered Loopback0 > tunnel source Loopback0 > tunnel destination 150.1.5.5 > ! > interface Ethernet0 > ip address 150.1.222.2 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Serial0 > ip address 150.1.12.2 255.255.255.0 > clockrate 64000 > ! > router ospf 1 > router-id 150.1.222.2 > log-adjacency-changes > network 150.1.12.2 0.0.0.0 area 12 > network 150.1.222.2 0.0.0.0 area 51 > ! > ip classless > ip route 150.1.5.5 255.255.255.255 Ethernet0 > > > r5's config > > interface Loopback0 > ip address 150.1.5.5 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Tunnel0 > ip unnumbered Loopback0 > tunnel source Loopback0 > tunnel destination 150.1.2.2 > ! > interface Ethernet0 > ip address 150.1.222.5 255.255.255.0 > ! > ! > router ospf 1 > router-id 150.1.111.5 > log-adjacency-changes > network 150.1.111.5 0.0.0.0 area 0 > network 150.1.222.5 0.0.0.0 area 51 > ! > ip classless > ip route 150.1.2.2 255.255.255.255 Ethernet0 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50606&t=50579 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NSSA and related design questions [7:50608]
I'd like to setup a group of routers to be in an OSPF sub-area. The sub-area will connect to the backbone via one or two ABRs. All other routers in the sub-area will be ASBRs. The ABRs will not be ASBRs. >From a design perspective, I want to put these routers into a sub-area so that I can limit the amount of routing information they need to be aware of. Further, I'd like to limit what information the backbone routers see regarding these ASBRs. Stub and Totally Stubby areas are not an option since the sub- areas contains ASBRs. Configuring the sub-area as an NSSA would help limit the number of routes in the sub-area (via the ABR nssa no-summary command) as the sub-area will have just a default, intra-area, and type 7 routes from the redist process. This is good. When the ABR gets the Type 7 LSAs from the ASBRs, it will translate them into type 5s and flood them throughout the backbone. While it appears that the backbone routers don't see the ASBRs (via type 4 LSAs from the ABR), I'd like to determine if it's possible to configure the ABR to take the type 7s and include these routes instead in the ABR's type 3 LSA? This would prevent the backbone routers from seeing the type 5s. Is this possible? Or, is it possible to perform redist from RIP into OSPF, but to configure this router to put the routes learned via RIP into it's type 1 LSA (ie do a redist but prevent the router from being an ASBR) Thanks for any info. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50608&t=50608 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Routing with IP Unnumbered Loopback [7:50581]
Tunji, I think the reasoning behind Ciaron's suggestion was to limit the propagation of the various host routes generated by the addition of every user that made a dailin connection. This would have quite impact depending on the size of your network. Based on the configs you posted, I was working on the assumption that the 3640 device, eth0 was on a globally routable IP segment. I must admit I'm a bit lost! I do have a few questions on which device act as your CE, and how does it connect to you ISP's PE device. You mentioned that the 2611(Internet gateway) has a rfc1918 compliant address assigned to the serial connection between you and your ISP, is this correct?. This is not a problem as some providers tend to use this option. There has been a number of different threads that discussed the "pros" and "cons" to this approach. You mentioned that NAT did not seem to work What "debugs" did you use to confirm or isolate the problem for what you observed. The 2611 at the moment is as you mentioned not the problem, however I would like to see the entire configuration of the 3640 NAS device. There is definitely something incorrectly configured that is responsible for any of the async connected devices inability to reach the e0(directly connected) interface Nigel - Original Message - From: "Tunji Suleiman" To: Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 2:22 PM Subject: Re: Routing with IP Unnumbered Loopback [7:50581] > Thanks Ciaron and Nigel, I removed the route statements > > network 192.168.200.0 and > network 192.168.1.0 > > from the 2611 and 3640 respectively, without any effect on the route tables. > Apparently, the eigrp process informs the routers of the connected networks > on the far sides of each other, making the network statements unnecessary. > > I posted the most relevant parts of the configs, assuming it will be obvious > that my ppp config is ok, since I can dialin to the 3640. The 3640 is a > production NAS connecting users b4 with a global IP pool. > > I would have configured NAT on the 2611 Internet gateway, but even that has > rfc1918 address on the serial link to the Internet. What I did was configure > NAT on the 3640, making the LoO the inside and E0/0 the outside. But even > that is not working, with traffic both ways ending at Lo0. > > If I can get a dialin user on the async line to ping e0/0 of the 3640, then > the issue should be resolved. > > TIA > > > > > >From: "Nigel Taylor" > >Reply-To: "Nigel Taylor" > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: Routing with IP Unnumbered Loopback [7:50581] > >Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 10:17:44 GMT > > > >Tunji, > > See Inline... > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Tunji Suleiman" > >To: > >Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 5:20 AM > >Subject: Routing with IP Unnumbered Loopback [7:50581] > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I am reposting this because there were no responses to the first post. I > >am > > > trying to conserve IP addresses by using private IPs for dialin users. > > > >NT: Ok, so as you mentioned you're trying to conserve IP address by using > >private IPs for dialin users. Question? When you make use of those > >private(rfc1918) addresses are they routable? > > > > >From > > > clients I can dial in to network but cant get beyond 3640 NAS, cant even > > > ping 3640 E0/0 LAN IP address. From 3640, I can ping Lo0 from E0/0 and > >vice > > > versa; I can ping connected client on any Async sourcing Lo0, but not > >E0/0; > > > and I can ping Internet hosts eg www.yahoo.com sourcing e0/0 but not > > > loopback0. > > > >To answer part of the question; "Yes" the outbound packet will be routable > >"only" > >because you have a 0/0 route, that will route any packet to the "next-hop" > >based on > >the static default route. We all know routing is bi-directional(I'm hoping > >:->), which > >now begs the question, "How does this private block of IPs you use get > >routed back to > >you(your network)? Will anyone in the Internet route these packets back to > >you? > > > >Once you answer these questions.. then check out this link! > >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/556/12.html > > > > > >HTH > > > >Nigel > > > > > >From 2611 Internet gateway, I can ping 3640 E0/0 and Lo0, but not > > > a connected dialin user on any Async with private IP address assigned by > > > 3640 from IP pool. I have a routing issue that makes traffic in both > > > directions get to and disappear at 3640 Lo0, but strangely all necessary > > > routes (that I can think of) are installed in the route tables. Can > >somebody > > > pls point out what I'm missing? Below are my configs and route tables: > > > > > > 3640-NAS Config: > > > interface Loopback0 > > > ip address 192.168.200.254 255.255.255.0 > > > ! > > > interface Ethernet0/0 > > > ip address 216.199.175.12 255.255.255.224 > > > ! > > > interface Group-Async1 > > > ip unnumbered Loopback0 > > > peer default ip address pool PRIVATE > > > ! > > > router eigrp 10 > > > network 192.168
looking for a layer 3 card for the SUP III WS-X5550 [7:50610]
8/3/2002 5:45pmSaturday Anyone have one they might want to trade or sell ? Richard // Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50610&t=50610 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIP/IGRP Routing Simulator? [7:50586]
Kevin Cullimore wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" > To: > Sent: 03 August 2002 1:47 pm > Subject: RE: RIP/IGRP Routing Simulator? [7:50586] > > > > A protocol analyzer would let you generate packets. Capture > some RIP and > > IGRP updatess so you know what they look like, change and add > network > > numbers, and then send them out again. A good analyzer will > recalculate > the > > IP checksum for you. (Also, the UDP checksum in the case of > RIP). > > If the pc/microcomputer you were planning on using is > expendable, you might > consider putting a unix variant on it, as the range of > available simulators > is a bit larger. Both the simulator & the analyzer approach > aren't much help > with at least one part of the certification preparation process: > > altering configuration parameters on the cisco IS & verifying > that the > packet structure & content match the expectations you are > developing. He can do that with a protocol analyzer. I don't see your point I guess. (He did say he has some routers.) Changing Cisco IOS configs and capturing with an analyzer is an excellent way to see how protcols really behave. The packet strucutre won't change usually, but the contents will change. > > Even in the case of proprietary routing protocols, it remains > an open > question whether or not the behavior of the vendor's software & > hardware > match the descriptions set forth in the specification (As > usual, the > proprietary specifications themselves remain closed). IGRP protocol specifications are easy to learn even it is technically "proprietary." Of course, the protocol analyzer vendors have all learned it (and EIGRP) quite well. Sniffer does a particulary good job of decoding EIGRP. IGRP, by the way, is completely specified in this old paper from Rutgers, which Cisco never objected to: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/5.html EIGRP protocol specification info is harder to find, though from an operations viewpoint, TAC has some terrific papers here: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/eigrp3.html Priscilla > > In the case of allegedly open standards, enough details are > left up to the > vendor that this kind of hands-on research is essential in > order to avoid > hitting a tinted-glass ceiling as far as a deep understanding > of networking > is concerned, which is itself nearly essential when in the > midst of a supply > glut. > > I suspect the standards themselves are similarly partially > disassociated > with the principles that undergird them, but I lack examples. > > > > Of course, if you could afford a good analyzer, you could > afford some new > > routers too, though! ;-) Does anyone know if the free > analyzers like > > Etherreal will let you generate packets? > > As far as ethereal is concerned, not as of the spring 2002 > version. > > > Priscilla > > > > > > Sparky Nelson wrote: > > > > > > What I am looking for is a Windows program that I can > connect > > > to a Cisco > > > router that will send out RIP routing updates. Would love to > > > send out a a > > > group of 5 to 10different routes to illustrate routing > without > > > using > > > loopback addresses. If I need to use loopbacks I will but > would > > > prefer the > > > routes were coming into the rouing environment from an > external > > > source > > > rather than an internal router. I figure it won't be hard to > > > get a RIP > > > simulator, I really don't expect to get anything that will > send > > > IGRP routing > > > information because of the propritary nature of IGRP. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Kevin > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50611&t=50586 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco Press OSPF? [7:50567]
Robert D. Cluett wrote: > > Nope, don't have the TCP/IP Volume 1 yet. I assumed that it > would be no > more detailed than the BSCN book. If it is comprehensive, do > you also feel > it is a better fit than the other two OSPF books by Cisco? You mean published by Cisco Press? The best books are not "by Cisco." The best books are by authors who have expertise beyond anything you can find on CCO or in a Cisco training class. Doyle's Routing TCP/IP book is WAY better than any specific certification books for the routing test. It definitely has a comprehensive coverage of OSPF. I also liked it somewhat better than the Thomas Thomas book because it's so focused, accurate, and easy to read, and has good examles, challenges, caveats, exercises, etc. It's also slightly newer and more real-world. But I liked the Thomas Thomas book too, just not as well. I don't know the other book that people often recommend for OSPF (Parkhurst?) Regardless, if you plan to go far in your Cisco studies, you must buy Doyle. :-) I think everyone will agree with me. I don't know the fellow and gain no benefits from recommending his book. I just think it's a terrific book, up there with Perlman, Comer, etc. Good luck! Priscilla > ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in > message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Do you already have Routing TCP/IP, Volume 1 by Doyle? It > does a great job > > with OSPF. > > > > Priscilla > > > > Robert D. Cluett wrote: > > > > > > All, > > > > > > Looking for a book that will cover OSPF in detail outside of > > > the BSCN book. > > > I recently purchased "Internet Routing Architectures" to > give > > > me more > > > detailed knowledge of BGP, but need to round out the OSPF > with > > > another book. > > > Any advice? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Rob Cluett, CCNA > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50612&t=50567 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lab [7:50613]
Hello, I need to buy some stuff (routers, switches, cables) to create my personal lab for CCNP. Do you guys have any recommendation? Any help will be appreciated. Thanks Raquel Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50613&t=50613 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT: Equipment for Sale [7:50614]
Sorry for the equipment posting but I need to sell the following as I'm out of work right now, if anyone needs them, let me know: 1)1-AS5200 w/dual T1/PRI card, 16/8MB,ver 11.1(7)AA, no modems 2)3-16MB Flash PCMCIA Card For Cisco 1600/3600/6000/7200/7500 Series Routers 3)1-Lucent Ascend Pipeline P130-UBRI-FT1(ISDN/FR capable) 4)1-VIP250 128MB 5)1-16 MB DRAM Cat5000 6)1-Cat4000 32MB SDRAM Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50614&t=50614 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Lab [7:50613]
The one I have at home is : a 1900 or better switch for IOS based switch practice.. (I know the 1900 isn't really ios) 2621 with voice cards and a dual port t1 card.. ( this is for the voip and serial/csu labs) several 2511 routers with the dte/dce back to back cables.. ( this takes care of the t1 similation as well console serving ) 2 4700 routers with ethernet and serial interfaces... (the serial allows for the 4700 to be a frame switch for the 2511's) This gets me thru most of the routing and switching labs..I still will need lab time for the atm and isdn areasbuts it a good start... Larry Letterman Cisco Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 5:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Lab [7:50613] Hello, I need to buy some stuff (routers, switches, cables) to create my personal lab for CCNP. Do you guys have any recommendation? Any help will be appreciated. Thanks Raquel Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50615&t=50613 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NSSA and related design questions [7:50608]
comments inline: At 09:28 PM 8/3/2002 +, bergenpeak wrote: >I'd like to setup a group of routers to be in an OSPF sub-area. >The sub-area will connect to the backbone via one or two >ABRs. All other routers in the sub-area will be ASBRs. >The ABRs will not be ASBRs. > > >From a design perspective, I want to put these routers into >a sub-area so that I can limit the amount of routing information >they need to be aware of. Further, I'd like to limit what >information the backbone routers see regarding these ASBRs. > >Stub and Totally Stubby areas are not an option since the sub- >areas contains ASBRs. > >Configuring the sub-area as an NSSA would help limit the number >of routes in the sub-area (via the ABR nssa no-summary command) >as the sub-area will have just a default, intra-area, and type 7 >routes from the redist process. This is good. > >When the ABR gets the Type 7 LSAs from the ASBRs, it will translate >them into type 5s and flood them throughout the backbone. While it >appears that the backbone routers don't see the ASBRs (via type 4 >LSAs from the ABR), I'd like to determine if it's possible to configure >the ABR to take the type 7s and include these routes instead in the >ABR's type 3 LSA? This would prevent the backbone routers from seeing >the type 5s. Is this possible? Native to OSPF, you have the ability to translate these LSA's from 7 to 5 or not to. This allows you a small amount of control. You cannot redefine external information as internal on an ABR. You could position a loopback interface in the NSSA area and configured aggregate addresses on it along with the "ip ospf network point-to-point" to enable this network to be advertised as a type 3 toward the backbone. In the real world, I would tend against this. If your intent is to shield non backbone routers from external information, make all areas NSSA and keep your backbone small and capable. >Or, is it possible to perform redist from RIP into OSPF, but >to configure this router to put the routes learned via RIP into it's >type 1 LSA (ie do a redist but prevent the router from being an >ASBR) No. >Thanks for any info. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50616&t=50608 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lab [7:50613]
for anyone who will be visiting the CCIE lab from about September on, access to a 3550 or two will become essential. for the transition period of Sept 1 through Nov 4 you may or may not see the 3550 in the CCIE Lab. Cisco states they will be replacing the existing token ring and Cat 5 switches during that time. Even so, during that time period one should be prepared for, and expect to at least work the basic IOS commands for switch stuff. After Nov 4, expect the worst. The 3550 will permit the configuration of QoS from end to end in the Lab. furthermore, IP phones don't HAVE to have in line power to work. dig? meaning I expect some more interesting voice scenarios to be seen. After Nov 4th, with the exception of DLSw ( as stated on the Cisco site ) the CCIE Lab will be a forward looking, highly relevant, and truly expert level test. All those rent a rack places are quickly moving 3550's into their racks. Still, I suspect rack rental time may be hard to come buy for a few months from September on. A certain auction site has had quite a bit of action of the 3550's but the prices have been surprisingly low. Also, street price for the 3550-24 is as low as 2K for the SMI version, and 3K for an EMI version. Even though token rink is being removed from the CCIE lab soon, picking up a few token ring routers can be an effective way to spend your practice lab budget. 2502's go for less than 200 these days, fully loaded. a 2512 terminal server/router is about half the price of the ethernet based 2511. great way to get a lot of serial ports for things like IP Expert labs. Just my opinion, based on what I have seen and read so far. Chuck ""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > The one I have at home is : > > a 1900 or better switch for IOS based switch practice.. > (I know the 1900 isn't really ios) > > 2621 with voice cards and a dual port t1 card.. > ( this is for the voip and serial/csu labs) > > several 2511 routers with the dte/dce back to back cables.. > ( this takes care of the t1 similation as well console serving ) > > 2 4700 routers with ethernet and serial interfaces... > (the serial allows for the 4700 to be a frame switch for the 2511's) > > This gets me thru most of the routing and switching labs..I still will need > lab time for the atm and isdn areasbuts it a good start... > > > Larry Letterman > Cisco Systems > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 5:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Lab [7:50613] > > > Hello, > > I need to buy some stuff (routers, switches, cables) to create my personal > lab for CCNP. Do you guys have any recommendation? > > Any help will be appreciated. > > Thanks > > Raquel Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50618&t=50613 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIP/IGRP Routing Simulator? [7:50586]
- Original Message - From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" To: Sent: 03 August 2002 7:48 pm Subject: Re: RIP/IGRP Routing Simulator? [7:50586] > > is a bit larger. Both the simulator & the analyzer approach > > aren't much help > > with at least one part of the certification preparation process: > > > > altering configuration parameters on the cisco IS & verifying > > that the > > packet structure & content match the expectations you are > > developing. > > He can do that with a protocol analyzer. I don't see your point I guess. (He > did say he has some routers.) Changing Cisco IOS configs and capturing with > an analyzer is an excellent way to see how protcols really behave. The > packet strucutre won't change usually, but the contents will change. Agreed. The distinction is roughly as follows: 1. If you don't have enough routers, you can certainly simulate traffic directed towards those routers by using pc-based costware packet capturing tools, thus simulating environments where many routers are in play, transmitting the traffic you have captured. 2. However, any time you wish to verify what a cisco l3-capable device would do based on a particular type of configuration change, you must rely on output from the original router, not your retransmitted sniffer/etherpeek/whatever output. It's a question of verifying the spec, the vendor's statements on how their implementation behaves and how unspecified conditions are handled. If you wish to test how multiple misconfigurations on multiple devices exchanging information with each other behave, there's not really a substitute for multiple cisco routers, unless you're willing to capture the device from a target router and coordinate the retransmission. If he has enough routers, great, but if he already has a given number of routers and asks about available windows simulators, chances are, he is seeking to understand how large numbers of directly connected intermediate systems interoperate. >>(As > > usual, the > > proprietary specifications themselves remain closed). > > IGRP protocol specifications are easy to learn even it is technically > "proprietary." Of course, the protocol analyzer vendors have all learned it > (and EIGRP) quite well. Sniffer does a particulary good job of decoding EIGRP. This is encouraging, but anyone on the path towards understanding should verify these specifications and their resulting consequences for themselves. The danger with proprietary technologies is the tendency to assume that routers react to inbound packets with a specified header-content/payload as the vendor insists they would. > IGRP, by the way, is completely specified in this old paper from Rutgers, > which Cisco never objected to: > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/5.html > > EIGRP protocol specification info is harder to find, though from an > operations viewpoint, TAC has some terrific papers here: > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/eigrp3.html > In retrospect, it kind of makes sense that proprietary technologies would have a better chance of converging towards a more complete specification, since they don't have to leave any details to vendor discretion. In spite of that, it remains a valuable exercise to verify that these protocols behave according to vendor specification. > > Priscilla Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50619&t=50586 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
