redundant serial links in same subnet??
I colleague of mine has a network connecting two routers with redundant serial links. These serial links happen to reside in the same subnet as follows: Router ARouter B S0 - 192.1.67.1/24 - 192.1.67.201/24 - S0 S1 - 192.1.67.2/24 - 192.1.67.202/14 - S1 Both Routers are running RIP. When both links are up, network is very sluggish and ping works intermittently (anywhere from 40%-70% of the time) between Routers A & B. When either link is shut down (only one link is up at a time), pings work 100% of the time. I'm suspecting that having both serial links in the same subnet is creating problems. First of all, can you even do this? Secondly, if you can put both serial 0 & 1 in the same subnet, is this creating a layer-2 bridge-loop environment? I think that putting each serial link in a separate sub-net should solve the problem, but I don't have access to any equipment to test this. Am I correct or off-base?? Any definitive feedback would be great. Any links to spell out the issues with this scenario would also be helpful. thanks, dj _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: redundant serial links in same subnet??
Responding to your good questions: - Yes, the /14 was a typo. Should be /24. - Router A is running IOS 11.1 - Router B is running IOS 11.0 - I believe RIP version 1 is used. - No, he is routing and not bridging. (At least he is attempting to route) - All other interfaces on either router are on different networks - With both serial interfaces up/up, router A can ping router B's serial interface IP addresses only intermittently and visa-versa. With either serial interface shut down, all pings work in all directions. - I also think this network used to have only one serial link (I believe a T1), and the second T1 serial interface was added to increase performance with the intention of load balancing. I have no idea why both links were put on the same subnet. Maybe the original person didn't know what he was doing, or he did it this way to overcome another problem that I am not aware of. Everything else in both routers' configurations looks pretty innocent except for the following: ip irdp on Router B's serial 2 interface (This is a completely diifferent serial link from the redundant links we've been addressing. I think it has no bearing, but maybe it does. I don't know. If the intent of the redundant serial links is to provide equal-cost load-balancing, does putting them on the same subnet open you to unnecessary problems??? What are your thoughts?? Thanks, dj Kevin Wigle wrote: > Right off the top I wanted to say "NO! - you can't do this..." but then I > saw that we were talking about serials here so I did a test. Sure enough I > was able to put two serial interfaces on the same router into the same > subnet. Didn't think that was possible. However, as I suspected - as soon > as I tried to put an Ethernet interface into any subnet in use by any other > interface - I got the error that it "overlaps" with interface x. > > So now we know that Yes you can do it - but will it work. > > first - we'll assume that the 192.1.67.202/14 is a typo and it should be > 192.1.67.202/24 > > second - let's get rid of the /24 on the transit links > > RouterA S0 - 192.1.67.1/30 RouterB S0 - 192.1.67.2/30 > RouterA S1 - 192.1.67.5/30 RouterB S1 - 192.1.67.6/30 > > third - RIP won't like that so change it to version 2 > > router RIP > version 2 > > (on both routers of course) > > or better yet - use EIGRP. > > But - you didn't give us any info about where you pinged from, the router? > a client on the ethernet segment? - what ip address is/are the ethernet > segments? and what was the destination of the ping??? How is RIP > configured? > > The more I look at it, it seems like a strange network - is he maybe > bridging and not routing? > > That the network is slow isn't too hard to figure. With two interfaces in > the same subnet the router has to try and figure out - here's a packet - I > can ship it to: > > 1. S0 > 2. S1 > 3. Nowhere - I don't have to!! we're all on the same network!! > 4. All of the above > 5. None of the above > 6. 1 and 2 > > With only one serial up, the choices become easier. > > And are we talking about redundant, x amount of bandwidth required but a > backup connection? > Or two circuits load balancing, or a combination? > > Too many variables not presented, need more info - perhaps configs??? (and > design objectives?) > > Kevin Wigle > > - Original Message - > From: "Dimitrije" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, 25 March, 2001 13:13 > Subject: redundant serial links in same subnet?? > > > I colleague of mine has a network connecting two routers with redundant > serial > > links. These serial links happen to reside in the same subnet as follows: > > > >Router > > A > Router > > B > > S0 - 192.1.67.1/24 - 192.1.67.201/24 - S0 > > S1 - 192.1.67.2/24 - 192.1.67.202/14 - S1 > > > > Both Routers are running RIP. > > > > When both links are up, network is very sluggish and ping works > intermittently > > (anywhere from 40%-70% of the time) between Routers A & B. When either > link is > > shut down (only one link is up at a time), pings work 100% of the time. > > > > I'm suspecting that having both serial links in the same subnet is > creating > > problems. First of all, can you even do this? Secondly, if you can put > both > > serial 0 & 1 in the same subnet, is this creating a layer-2 bridge-loop > > environment? > > > > I think that putting each serial link in a separate sub-net should solv
Re: redundant serial links in same subnet??
Responding to your good questions: - Yes, the /14 was a typo. Should be /24. - Router A is running IOS 11.1 - Router B is running IOS 11.0 - I believe RIP version 1 is used. - No, he is routing and not bridging. (At least he is attempting to route) - All other interfaces on either router are on different networks - With both serial interfaces up/up, router A can ping router B's serial interface IP addresses only intermittently and visa-versa. With either serial interface shut down, all pings work in all directions. - I also think this network used to have only one serial link (I believe a T1), and the second T1 serial interface was added to increase performance with the intention of load balancing. I have no idea why both links were put on the same subnet. Maybe the original person didn't know what he was doing, or he did it this way to overcome another problem that I am not aware of. Everything else in both routers' configurations looks pretty innocent except for the following: ip irdp on Router B's serial 2 interface (This is a completely diifferent serial link from the redundant links we've been addressing. I think it has no bearing, but maybe it does. I don't know. If the intent of the redundant serial links is to provide equal-cost load-balancing, does putting them on the same subnet open you to unnecessary problems??? What are your thoughts?? Thanks, dj Kevin Wigle wrote: > Right off the top I wanted to say "NO! - you can't do this..." but then I > saw that we were talking about serials here so I did a test. Sure enough I > was able to put two serial interfaces on the same router into the same > subnet. Didn't think that was possible. However, as I suspected - as soon > as I tried to put an Ethernet interface into any subnet in use by any other > interface - I got the error that it "overlaps" with interface x. > > So now we know that Yes you can do it - but will it work. > > first - we'll assume that the 192.1.67.202/14 is a typo and it should be > 192.1.67.202/24 > > second - let's get rid of the /24 on the transit links > > RouterA S0 - 192.1.67.1/30 RouterB S0 - 192.1.67.2/30 > RouterA S1 - 192.1.67.5/30 RouterB S1 - 192.1.67.6/30 > > third - RIP won't like that so change it to version 2 > > router RIP > version 2 > > (on both routers of course) > > or better yet - use EIGRP. > > But - you didn't give us any info about where you pinged from, the router? > a client on the ethernet segment? - what ip address is/are the ethernet > segments? and what was the destination of the ping??? How is RIP > configured? > > The more I look at it, it seems like a strange network - is he maybe > bridging and not routing? > > That the network is slow isn't too hard to figure. With two interfaces in > the same subnet the router has to try and figure out - here's a packet - I > can ship it to: > > 1. S0 > 2. S1 > 3. Nowhere - I don't have to!! we're all on the same network!! > 4. All of the above > 5. None of the above > 6. 1 and 2 > > With only one serial up, the choices become easier. > > And are we talking about redundant, x amount of bandwidth required but a > backup connection? > Or two circuits load balancing, or a combination? > > Too many variables not presented, need more info - perhaps configs??? (and > design objectives?) > > Kevin Wigle > > - Original Message - > From: "Dimitrije" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, 25 March, 2001 13:13 > Subject: redundant serial links in same subnet?? > > > I colleague of mine has a network connecting two routers with redundant > serial > > links. These serial links happen to reside in the same subnet as follows: > > > >Router > > A > Router > > B > > S0 - 192.1.67.1/24 - 192.1.67.201/24 - S0 > > S1 - 192.1.67.2/24 - 192.1.67.202/14 - S1 > > > > Both Routers are running RIP. > > > > When both links are up, network is very sluggish and ping works > intermittently > > (anywhere from 40%-70% of the time) between Routers A & B. When either > link is > > shut down (only one link is up at a time), pings work 100% of the time. > > > > I'm suspecting that having both serial links in the same subnet is > creating > > problems. First of all, can you even do this? Secondly, if you can put > both > > serial 0 & 1 in the same subnet, is this creating a layer-2 bridge-loop > > environment? > > > > I think that putting each serial link in a separate sub-net should solv
Re: redundant serial links in same subnet??
I recommended to my colleague to remap one of the redundant serial links to a different subnet. He made the change and all is well. Now all pings work and performance has notiicably improved. "Show ip route" command displays multiple RIP paths to destination networks. It looks like links are load balancing as they are suppose to. It looks like these routers were just misconfigured as I suspected. But I wanted to solicit your opinions just in case I was missing something that the original network designer intended, but that I wasn't aware of. Thanks all for your input. dj Brian wrote: > If you were doing IP unnumbered and wanted failover, perhaps that would be > one. Just a guess though, I would never try the serial links with > overlapping addresses like the ones that started this thread. > > Bri > > - Original Message - > From: "Erick B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Mask Of Zorro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 10:43 PM > Subject: Re: redundant serial links in same subnet?? > > > I found some docs mentioning this and it does make > > sense for dial backup and related scenarios. I can't > > think of anything else offhand that it would be useful > > for. Perhaps thats why load balancing over it wasn't > > working well... with both interfaces up at same time > > on same router. I'll have to do some testing with > > this. > > > > --- Mask Of Zorro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Cisco allows up to 4 serial links in the same > > > subnet. There are situations > > > where you would want to do that, but I cannot for > > > the life of me recall what > > > they are... I did read about it once, and actually > > > had to research it with > > > the TAC. Search the TAC archives and you will find > > > the message from them > > > that indicates you cannot do the 5th link... > > > > > > Z > > > > > > > > > >From: "Michael Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Reply-To: "Michael Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Subject: Re: redundant serial links in same > > > subnet?? > > > >Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 11:50:19 -0800 > > > > > > > >/24? Subnet them. I like /30 for p to p links. > > > run rip version 2. > > > > > > > > > > > >"Dimitrije" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > I colleague of mine has a network connecting two > > > routers with redundant > > > >serial > > > > > links. These serial links happen to reside in > > > the same subnet as > > > >follows: > > > > > > > > > >Router > > > > > A > > > >Router > > > > > B > > > > > S0 - 192.1.67.1/24 - > > > 192.1.67.201/24 - S0 > > > > > S1 - 192.1.67.2/24 - > > > 192.1.67.202/14 - S1 > > > > > > > > > > Both Routers are running RIP. > > > > > > > > > > When both links are up, network is very sluggish > > > and ping works > > > >intermittently > > > > > (anywhere from 40%-70% of the time) between > > > Routers A & B. When either > > > >link is > > > > > shut down (only one link is up at a time), pings > > > work 100% of the time. > > > > > > > > > > I'm suspecting that having both serial links in > > > the same subnet is > > > >creating > > > > > problems. First of all, can you even do this? > > > Secondly, if you can put > > > >both > > > > > serial 0 & 1 in the same subnet, is this > > > creating a layer-2 bridge-loop > > > > > environment? > > > > > > > > > > I think that putting each serial link in a > > > separate sub-net should solve > > > >the > > > > > problem, but I don't have access to any > > > equipment to test this. > > > > > > > > > > Am I correct or off-base?? Any definitive > > > feedback would be great. Any > > > >links > > > > > to spell out the issues with this scenario would > > > also be helpful. > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > dj > > > > > > > > __ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > > > _ > > 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]
How do you telnet into a specific vty port? [7:2005]
How can one telnet into a specific vty port? I changed the password on vty 2 to allow one specific user access into my 1720. However, I can't telnet into vty 2 until their are active telnet sessions already established on vty 0 and 1. Note vty 2 corresponds to line 8 on this 1720. Also note that I am NOT trying to reverse telnet. Thanks for any help regards, Dimitrije Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=2005&t=2005 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How do you telnet into a specific vty port? [7:2005]
Tried your suggestion, and it worked perfectly. Thanks for the help Dimitrije Brian Dennis wrote: > Put the particular vty you want to telnet to in a rotary group. Telnet to an > IP address on the router but not to the default port of 23. Telnet to port > 7000 + the rotary group number (i.e. telnet 1.1.1.1 7004). > > Brian Dennis > CCIE #2210 (R&S)(ISP/Dial) > CCSI #98640 > > Access_Server-A(config)#line vty 4 > Access_Server-A(config-line)#rotary ? > Rotary group to add line to > > Access_Server-A(config-line)#rotary 4 > Access_Server-A(config-line)#^Z > Access_Server-A#telnet 1.1.1.1 7004 > Trying 1.1.1.1, 7004 ... Open > > User Access Verification > > Username: root > Password: > Access_Server-A> > > -Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Dimitrije > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 6:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: How do you telnet into a specific vty port? [7:2005] > > How can one telnet into a specific vty port? I changed the password on vty > 2 to > allow one specific user access into my 1720. However, I can't telnet into > vty 2 > until their are active telnet sessions already established on vty 0 and 1. > Note > vty 2 corresponds to line 8 on this 1720. Also note that I am NOT trying to > reverse telnet. Thanks for any help > regards, > Dimitrije > 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=2039&t=2005 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2 T1s to different providers? Can I load balance? [7:7835]
A central site has two T1s to 2 different providers. Which routing protocols iis required in this case? Can I load balance between these T1s? regards, dj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7835&t=7835 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Compatibility issues with different manufacturer's data [7:34729]
How compatible are differnet manufacturer's switches? For instance, how well do Cisco switches, 3COM switches and/or Intel data switches work together? Can they auto-negotiate their Ethernet settings or should they be manually set? I'm having some issues getting some Intel and 3COM switches to play together. Just wanted to get some opinions on whether this is a common problem between manufacturer's products. Thanks dimitri Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34729&t=34729 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BCMSN
Has the book, Building Cisco Multilayered Switched Networks (BCMSN), published by Cisco Press been released yet? If not, then when? I have yet to see it. Dimitrije ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CIT 4.0 /Support 2.0
Passed Support 2.0 today with 827. 61 questions, 75 minutes with a passing score of 692. I used CIT Cisco Press Book, Boson test #2 and Oppenheimer's flash cards. I read CIT Book cover-to-cover and then drilled with practice questions and reviewed all my wrong answers several times until I knew and understood all answers to questions cold. I didn't just memorize answers. I also knew WHY they were the right answers. That's the key. Exam had what I thought to be some very cleverly worded questions that really required you to think carefully before answering. Thus, a couple of times, my initial-response answer to a question was wrong until I figured out what the question was really asking. From what I heard others say, there is not much difference between CIT and Support 2.0. Based on the CIT material I used as a reference, I tend to agree. Dimitrije Sanjay da wrote: > Hello All : > > I am planning for the CIT 4.0 exam next week. > However, I am still debating whether I should go for the support 2.0 exam. > There has been numerous complaints in this group about the poorly written > CIT 4.0 exam. > Any thoughts ? > > Also, how adequate are the boson tests for CIT 4.0 or Support 2.0 ? > > thanks > > Sanjay > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice 2.0 Beta Exam
I just signed up for the Voice 2.0 Beta exam (exam no. 641-647). So far I have not found any information on the content of this exam on any of Cisco's web sites. I suppose this is a newer version of CVOICE, but I just don't know. Does anyone have a clue what is on this exam so I know how to prepare??? Thanks, Dimitrije ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CID/CCDP Stories
Chuck, You have actually covered all the material for this exam, so all you need now is practice recalling it from the deepest and darkest regions of your brain. Just get the Boson tests for CID, and continually drill from those questions and review all your wrong answers from your reference material until you fully understand all the questions and answers cold. Those 250-300 extra practice questions should provide enough cerebral excercise to take you over the top of CID. This at least worked for me. Good luck! Dimitrije Chuck Larrieu wrote: > First of all, congratulations to Kevin Wiggle, who passed today. Good for > you, Kevin > > My own sad story - I humiliated myself by failing today. 65 needed. My score > 61. > > I tell my kids it's better to be lucky than smart. Lord knows I've had my > share of luck, passing seven exams first try each, some by fewer than 15 > points. Well, today my luck ran out. I've discovered that sometimes it > still helps to be smart. > > My take on the test - not what I expected. No case studies. Not as much SNA > and product as I expected. My major shortcoming was that I took for granted > that I already knew LAN and WAN protocols, glossed over them in my > preparations, and as a result just got burned, correctly answering fewer > than half of the 50 questions in those areas. > > Others have said so, but I will repeat. There were questions where one > answer was required, but more than one was correct. There were a couple of > cases where only one answer was wrong, which leads me to believe that the > intended question was "which of these is NOT" rather than "which of these > IS" And there was the one question where given a particular product with a > particular number of various kinds of ports, what is the appropriate > application for this product, and none of the answers made any sense at all. > > Well, I can't really complain. My wife tells me she knew I was going to fail > by my carriage and attitude as I left the house this morning. I knew, too. > And after all, I wouldn't be griping if I'd gotten 69 instead of 61. > > I'll be trying again within the next seven days. This may be a great weekend > for studying. It'll only cost me a few hundred to ship the wife and kids off > someplace so I can concentrate. Cheap at any price. :-> > > Chuck > Your obedient serpent > > Please check out my new footers for a new age > 1) Altruism > http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/HungerSite > Please help feed hungry people worldwide. A few seconds a day can make a > difference to many people > 2) Shameless Hucksterism > www.certificationzone.com > An excellent study focal point for all levels of certification, as well as > the attainment of internetworking expertise. Use my name when you register. > You get good study material and I get extra time > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCMSN
Congratulations Rik, I too just passed BCMSN earlier today. I used Karen Webb's new BCMSN book from Cisco Press and the Boson test. The book is based on the Cisco course. Thus 95% of the test content is in the book, while the Boson tests helped identify some of my weaker areas. By passing this test, I just became Cisco's newest CCNP and CCDP. So do I celebrate by going to Disneyland? No, not yet - got to study for Voice 2.0 Dimitrije Rik Guyler wrote: > Well, I passed BCMSN yesterday and I have to say that the test sucked. I > didn't feel that it was overly technically difficult (your opinion may be > different), but many of the questions were worded poorly. So poor at times > that I wasn't sure what the question was asking. If CLSC was worse than > this one then I'm glad I waited to take the 2.0 version! > > I read the CiscoPress LAN Switching book (Clark), which is wonderful. This > was my main source of study, which more than covered the switching topics. > This is a CCIE prep book and at around 1000 pages, it does not lack detail > in any area. I did hit CCO a few times so I could get a new twist on a > given explanation, but the book covers everything you need for the test as > well as a ton of material for real-world networking. Get the book and > learn! Passing the test will come naturally after this! > > Now, onward to CIT for my final CCNP test... > > Rik Guyler > Principal Consultant > Cardinal Solutions Group > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How do you change tcp port for telnet on a router? [7:64438]
line vty 3 4 password LetMeInPort3001 login rotary 1 ! telnet 3001 allows you to telnet into router at port 3001 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote: > How do you change tcp port for telnet on a router? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64438&t=64438 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How do you change tcp port for telnet on a router? [7:64856]
argument in the password commnad is actually the un-encrypted password. telnet ip_address 3001 will get you a cisco password promt at port 3001. Amar KHELIFI wrote: > that argument does not exist with the password command atleast for the ios > vers i have. > what ios r u using. > normally when there is an arrgument a space delimites it. > telnet 3001, will actually try to resolve 3001 to an ip(ie, if ip host is > being used) > could u develop a bit on this? > > Regards, Amar. > > ""Dimitrije"" a icrit dans le message de news: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > line vty 3 4 > > password LetMeInPort3001 > > login > > rotary 1 > > ! > > > > telnet 3001 allows you to telnet into router at port 3001 > > > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote: > > > > > How do you change tcp port for telnet on a router? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64856&t=64856 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A career in MPLS..... [7:66609]
I'm trying to figure out if this truly interesting discussion is disguised as a flame ...or is it the other way around! Either way, I picked up some good insight about MPLS. Let the cyber flames continue! dj nrf wrote: > ""Henry D."" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I don't mean to start any type of argument here, especially with someone > > who obviously has more experience than I do. Yes, you've been > > contributing to this study group many times. But also many times > > your contributions are rather rethorical than practical and at the same > > time you seem to draw attention to what your opinion is rather than to > > give an educated and objective view backed by any type of real life > > examples. > > First of all, given the subject matter (MPLS), it is most difficult to be > giving out real-life examples. The fact is, MPLS is at this time not widely > implemented, so therefore few examples abound. > > Second of all, it is essentially impossible for anybody to make a posting > that is not necessarily colored with an opinion, particularly when they are > discussing a subjective question. Questions like whether they should study > MPLS or what they should do with their future are necessarily going to draw > a wide range of opinions. If everybody is supposed to dogmatically answer > 'yes' or 'no', then what's the point of even asking the question in the > first place? The point is that subjective questions must necessarily elicit > subjective answers. People are not robots. Everybody has to call it like > they see it. You ask a subjective question, and people should be able to > chime in with whatever they think. It's all about freedom of speech. > > Third of all, Cisconuts and I have taken the discussion offline, and while I > don't want to speak for him, I would venture to say that he is quite happy > with my responses. So if he's cool, then what exactly is your beef? > > Fourth of all, I resent the implication that my views are not educated. Be > careful when you go around saying stuff like that. I seem to recall a story > a few years ago how one particular guy harangued another guy about BGP, > essentially saying that he knew nothing about how BGP really worked - only > to find out later that the second guy was none other than a certain Tony Li, > the father of BGP. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I'm Li or > anywhere close to him. What I'm saying is that you should watch your fire. > > >So yes, I'm saying that some times you don't quite stick > > to the subject at hand. I don't see how your view on Cisco's curriculum > > in re to MPLS can be taken seriously without you putting actual examples > > of how you came to that conclusion. > > Ok, fine, then let's review the CCIP curricula vis-a-vis MPLS, and in > particular, let's review what exactly they teach. I know for a fact that > they teach primarily LDP and gloss over RSVP-TE. Do you think this is wise? > There is no evidence in the industry of a consensus that LDP will > automatically win out over RSVP-TE. If you have such evidence, I would like > to see it. I doubt that LDP will ever win out simply because you can't do > TE with LDP unless you go with CR-LDP which Cisco does not have any plans to > support at this time. TE is one of the more important features available > within MPLS. The point I'm making is that neglecting RSVP-TE within an MPLS > exam seems rather dubious. > > Second, the last 2-3 modules of that class deal specifically with l3vpn's, > with nary a mention of any l2vpn technology whatsoever. Again, why such an > emphasis on L3 but no discussion of L2? Much of the most exciting work in > MPLSCON is about l2vpn's. Don't get me wrong, L3 is good to know, but a > good MPLS class would also get into a discussion of l2. > > The point I'm making is this. If all you do is follow the official Cisco > MPLS class, you will get a warped view of how real-world MPLS is. LDP is > not the ultimate no-brainer signalling path for constructing LSP's and MPLS > can do far more than just L3VPN's. I'm not telling you not to follow > Cisco's curricula. What I'm saying is that you should supplement it with > other readings and experience. > > >Even if the knowledge required for > > achieving > > Cisco's recognition in re to MPLS was not as advanced as one would hope, > > shouldn't we look at positives of the whole process ? > > Again, it's not a matter of being advanced as it has to do with emphasis. I > think that the coursework emphasizes some of the not-so-important things and > does not discuss some of the more important things. > > Also, I don't think it's my job to 'play nice'. If things are not good, > then I think people should say that they're not good. Why engage in > diplomatic euphemisms? Does it really do anybody any good to dress things > up so that they look better than they really are? I'm not running a > marketing campaign. > > > There are still things > > to be le
Re: Access-List Usage: Can I do this?? [7:66769]
Yes, it looks like the non-contigious access-list does indeed work. I've implemented it today on a production network with VoIP telephones and haven't (at least yet) received any reports of poor voice quality.. The actual access-list used: access-list 101 permit ip any 10.10.0.200 0.0.7.7 precedence critical The VoIP phones are mapped at 4th octet IP addresses: 200-207 5 remote sites mapped at 3rd octet IP addresses: 0 thru 4 With just this one access-list, I am able to efficiently classify all VoIP devices at all remote sites: thanks Gaz, dj Bikespace wrote: > Don't think my last post got through, so I'll shorten it now... > > I think your address and wildcard mask should be 10.10.0.200 0.0.255.7 (If > the non-contiguous masks are still accepted). > > Regards, > > Gaz > > ""Bill"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > should work fine. > > > > You can also test this out by sending a constant data stream via ftp or > > something and then start a voice conversation. > > > > ""dj"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I'm setting up LLQ over hub-'n-spoke frame-relay WAN and want to use the > > > following funky looking access-list to mark voice packets for the high > > > priority queue. This access-list logically works, but my question is: > > > Is this legal? > > > access-list 101 permit ip any 10.10.X.201 0.0.255.248 precedence > > > critical > > > > > > I have 8 IP phones at each remote site starting at 4th octet IP address > > > of 201 (thru 208). > > > Each remote site is on a class C network, where the 3rd octet IP address > > > labeled X is designated as the site location. > > > eg: 10.10.1.0/24 is site 1; 10.10.2.0/24 is site 2;10.10.3.0/24 is > > > site 3, etc. > > > > > > Will the IOS allow this non-conventional access-list to work per my > > > intensions? > > > > > > regards, > > > dj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66898&t=66769 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
encapsulation failure on an 806 router [7:43813]
Got an 806 router with two Ethernet interfaces used for broadband access to the Internet. Ethernet 1 is typically the WAN interface pointing towards the Internet router, while Ethernet 0 is a 4-port hub used for the local LAN. Everything works properly when the 806 is configured in the conventional way, with WAN pointing toward Internet router. However, I have a VPN appliance (with dual Ethernet ports) that needs to be in parallel to the 806. So I wanted to set-up the 806 with Ethernet 0 (4 port hub) pointing toward the Internet router along with the public side of the VPN applicance while Ethernet 1 of the 806 connected to the corporate LAN switch along with the private side of the VPN. When I turn the 806 around like this, I get an "encapsulation failure" message during debug ip packet when sending data over the Ethernet 0 (4 port hub connected to the Internet router), thus no packets get sent out that Interface. I get this error even after I do erase startup-config, reload and only assign IP addresses to the Ethernet Interfaces. I am not using PPPoe and my encapsulation type shows ARPA when I display a show interface for both Ethernet ports. any thoughts?? dj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43813&t=43813 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any VoIP compatibility issues between MC38010 & 1750? [7:49960]
Can one run VoIP over a WAN between different router families such as an MC38010 and a 1750? Is this a no brainer or are there some subtle issues here that require awareness? Specifically, are there compatibility issues running VoIP between an MC38010 with an FXO module running IOS 12.1.14 IP Plus, and a 1750 with an FXS module running 12.1.14 IP Voice Plus? thanks dj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49960&t=49960 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
frame relay back-to-back [7:50215]
I would like to connect 2 routers with a back-to-back frame relay WAN conection, but I don't have the DCE-DTE back-to-back cable. Each router does however have T1 WICs. My question is can I connect the routers together with a T1 cross-over cable and successfully run frame relay encapsulation over that WAN. I don't see why not. Am I missing something? Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50215&t=50215 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
router simulation on ccnp recertification [7:71765]
Not in a good mood because I got a 703 on this test today (732 passing). Hopefully, a little more review will get me over the hump. However, I did have a frustrating experience with one of the new router simulation questions - I wonder if anyone had a similar experience. I'll keep it general as to not disclose specific question contents. The problem was to configure serial 0/0 on the router thru the console port: Router>enable password: cisco Router#config t Router(config)#interface serial 0/0 ^ % Invalid input detected at '^' marker. Router(config)# I tried literally about two-dozen permutations & abbreviations of the above command and the simulator would never let me into interface config mode. I even used help and tab and ?. I verified that I was in privileged mode and config mode. I even checked if I was connected to the correct router. I either did something blatantly wrong (which I guess is possible), or the simulator went wack-o on me (less likely, but I believe still possible). After 5 minutes, I gave up and moved on. The unfortunate part was I knew exactly how to configure the interface, but I was not able to enter interface config mode to complete the task. Thanks for letting me blow off some steam! dj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71765&t=71765 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Access-list ?? [7:71696]
if .150 is inclusive, within the permitted range, then add 1 additional permit statement: permit host 192.100.34.150 Bikespace wrote: > I think the: > > access-list 10 permit 192.100.34.97 0.0.0.31 > should be > access-list 10 permit 192.100.34.96 0.0.0.31 > as 97 isn't the network address, but this means adding another line at the > start to disallow 96. > > I'll stick by my previous effort for the moment: > > deny 192.100.34.96 0.0.0.3 > permit 192.100.34.96 0.0.0.31 > permit 192.100.34.128 0.0.0.15 > permit 192.100.34.144 0.0.0.3 > permit 192.100.34.148 0.0.0.1 > > Bikespace > > ""Hyman, Craig"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Thank you I will try this and see if it works.. > > > > SRS Level 2 > > SRS Implementation Team > > Cell phone# 720-840-4887 > > SUN PH# 303-272-2661 > > Virtual Office# 303-604-0037 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Kam Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:01 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Access-list ?? [7:71696] > > > > > > Craig, > > > > The problem as I see it is you need to allow 50 hosts, to pass through an > > ACL but the 50 hosts you want to pass are difficult to "mask out" with a > > simple ACL. > > > > The previous answers provided might be correct but are a little more than > I > > believe you are looking for. You are not trying to filter on source AND > > destination address and do not need to filter by protocol, just source, so > I > > recomend a standard access-list, like I have listed below. There are > > several ways to "slice it up" here is just one. > > > > access-list 10 deny host 192.100.34.97 > > access-list 10 deny host 192.100.34.98 > > access-list 10 deny host 192.100.34.99 > > access-list 10 deny host 192.100.34.151 > > access-list 10 deny host 192.100.34.152 > > access-list 10 deny 192.100.34.153 0.0.0.7 > > access-list 10 permit 192.100.34.97 0.0.0.31 > > access-list 10 permit host 192.100.34.127 > > access-list 10 permit host 192.100.34.128 > > access-list 10 permit 192.100.34.129 0.0.0.31 > > > > If it's an option, you might want to consider re-addressing to better > align > > your host addresses with a subnet boundary. > > > > For example, 192.100.34.65 0.0.0.63 covers hosts 65-126 (62 hosts) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71805&t=71696 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
