Re: Frame-relay
When your frame relay service provider assigns you PVC's, they are private unless otherwise specified. The carrier will collect PVC's from different users and transport them over a large pipe together, same as the carriers do with T-1 or subrate circuits. Therefore, it is shared from that perspective, but unless someone has access to that large pipe, the PVC's do not cross across customer boundaries. In other words, no other customer has access to your PVC's. At the end points, the carrier will demux the various PVCs and route them to the proper destinations. - Original Message - From: Dan West [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John Jarrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:15 AM Subject: Re: Frame-relay AFAIK, this can be true if only one customer is using all the VCs in a frame network. If nobody else has VCs on that network, it would not be an issue unless, of course, somebody physically compromises the media (copper tapping). Is this accurate?? : --- John Jarrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could someone please clarify something for me about Frame-relay? I had always understood that traffic over frame-relay was unsecure and needed to be encrypted if it was of a critical nature. Is frame-relay always a shared network? I had thought so but I have recently had a someone explain to me that they did not need to encrypt the data because they "owned" the cloud that the pvc ran through. He said that it was a point to point connection and therefore not over a shared network. All of our connections are setup using sub-interfaces and point to point. I still thought that it was over a shared network. This did not make a lot of sense to me. Any help would be appreciated. Any links to good documentation would be helpful as well. Thanks, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] = from The Big Lebowski... The Dude: You sure he won't mind? Bunny: Dieter doesn't care about anything. He's a nihilist. The Dude: Ohhh, that must be exhausting... __ 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]
Re: classless to classfull routing issue
yes, but only if you had the available subnets in the 192.168.113.x, 192.168.114.x , and 192.168.115.x range. (You can't use the subnets that are already defined by OSPF) What you really want is to have are those particular routes with the proper masks advertised throughout the IGRP network. Thus, if the subnets were indeed available... you could on the IGRP router define ip subnet-zero interface loopback1 ip address 192.168.113.1 255.255.255.192 interface loopback2 ip address 192.168.114.1 255.255.255.128 interface loopback3 ip address 192.168.115.1 255.255.255.240 router ospf 1 yada yada yada router igrp 1 redistribute ospf 1 metric metrics metrics metrics network 192.168.113.0 network 192.168.114.0 network 192.168.115.0 which would then define the fixed mask length for those networks in the IGRP AS, same as the static routes would do. - Original Message - From: Curtis Call [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:43 AM Subject: Re: classless to classfull routing issue Once solution would be to define multiple subinterfaces with the respective /28, /26, and /25 network masks. Classful protocols assume that the subnet mask being used on the router is the subnet mask that a protocol update is using as well, if there is no matching mask they default to the standard classful network mask. So putting these other netmasks on the router should fix the problem since then the router will know which updates belong in which subnet. I haven't tried it, but it seems like it would work to me :-) At 01:45 AM 3/7/01, you wrote: you'll just have to use the 24 bit masks that are default in the IGRP routing protocol. Or establish and redistribute static routes into your IGRP routing process. see http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/52.html for some other direction -e- Prasanna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 983mlr$unf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:983mlr$unf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hi Guys I was trying to redistribute from OSPF Domain ( has variable subnets ,/24, /28 , /26 /25 ) to IGRP domain ( /24 ) , i got severe masking issue as IGRP is classfull and i could able to redistribute only /24 subnets .I was trying to implement summary address with /24 towards IGRP but i could not able to summarize the subnets. OSPF subnets - 192.168.112.0/24 192.168.113.192/26 192. 168.114.128/25 192.168.115. 240/28 IGRP subnet - 192.168.110.0/24 192.168.111.0/24 What is the elegant way to solve this problem _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Re: Question on HSRP]
Priscilla Oppenheimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 06:07 PM 3/6/01, NetEng wrote: Does HSRP work at the interface level or is the entire router on acvtive/stand-by? In other words, if I have two routers working in HSRP and a link goes down somewhere down the line, will the first router know to fail-over to the second router (with a good link)? HSRP works at the interface level by definition. It is configured at the interface level, too. If a link goes down "somewhere down the line", that is NOT a function of HSRP failover. However, if a directly connected link fails, it CAN switch itself to another standby router. Here are your HSRP failover parameters: 1. Loss of direct interface - all traffic is shifted to another standby interface. 2. Loss of interface(s) directly attached in that router (by use of the "standby track interface" command - HSRP can track multiple interfaces simultaneously 3. HSRP does NOT disable the primary IP address on a standby interface, nor does it squelch routing updates from those interfaces. All HSRP interfaces are ALWAYS live on their primary IP address. Therefore, it's conceivable that rerouting could occur if a downstream path were broken and you had multiple default gateway addresses programmed on your hosts. However, enabling HSRP also DISABLES ICMP redirects (to prevent routing loops... ha-ha-ha-ha) and you can't run it with Proxy ARP, so you end up having to make a decision about how best to enable redundancy/failover on your network. Interesting question. The first router would have to lose its connectivity to the second router. Routers that are running HSRP send and receive multicast UDP-based hello packets to detect router failure and to designate active and standby routers. HSRP detects when the designated active router fails because of the lack of hello packets, at which point a selected standby router assumes control of the Hot Standby group's MAC and IP addresses. A new standby router is also selected at that time. Remember HSRP stands for Hot Standby Router Protocol, not Hot Standby Routing protocol. It's the default router for LAN devices that's on standby. If you think of HSRP as a routing protocol, then you will tend to think it does more than it does. I think to solve your problem you need a "real" routing protocol, although without more info, it's hard to say for sure. BTW, nothing throws off HSRP worst than losing connectivity between the standby interfaces when they're still all active. Dynamic routing tables go berserk, because they receive the same routing update from two different sources and that sometimes starts the asymmetric routing dance. Priscilla I have one router connected to one ISP and a second router connected to a second ISP. Can these routers be run in HSRP or must they be running in parallel and let a dynamic routing protocol (BGP on the outside and let's say EIGRP on the inside) decide? TIA. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
