richard dumoulin wrote:
Priscilla,
Do you remember the discussion about IP unnumbered ? Sure you
do. You wrote Now, network management is a concern, however.
If your serial interface is unnumbered, you can't ping it or
send it SNMP messages. With those functions, the serial port
acts
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of
richard dumoulin
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Priscilla Oppenheimer [7:49347]
No prob, see below.
RB#sh run
Building configuration...
Current configuration:
!
version
I think I come to the same conclusion that you did, which is that you can
ping an unnumbered serial interface. It's kind of stretching the truth
though. You're pinging the router, but are you really pinging the serial
interface when you're using an address that is not associated with the
So your saying that you configured the serial interface with ip
unnumbered, sourcing the ethernet interface of the repective routers.
If you shut down the ethernet you can still access the remote router
over the serial??
This is something new or have I been out of the unnumbered game too
At 08:04 PM 7/21/2002 +, Chuck wrote:
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
At 5:25 PM + 7/21/02, richard dumoulin wrote:
Well, I interpret it that you can ping the serial, no ?
I would assume that. It makes no sense for an ISP to
hhm learn something new every day. thanks.
that still gets back to how ip unnumbered really works, as opposed to how
most of us think it works. RFC 1812 specifically talks about using the RID
as the interface address:
this memo has adopted an alternate scheme, which has been
Chuck wrote:
hhm learn something new every day. thanks.
that still gets back to how ip unnumbered really works, as
opposed to how
most of us think it works. RFC 1812 specifically talks about
using the RID
as the interface address:
this memo has adopted an alternate
., it's
management, or it's affiliates.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
richard dumoulin
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Priscilla Oppenheimer [7:49347]
No prob, see below.
RB#sh run
Building
hhm learn something new every day. thanks.
that still gets back to how ip unnumbered really works, as opposed to how
most of us think it works. RFC 1812 specifically talks about using the
RID
as the interface address:
this memo has adopted an alternate scheme, which has been
Peter ,
The book says clearly that the interface is pingable. Even more, I have
tried it and it really works. I just took two routers connected by
back_to_back serial cables with IP unnumbered configured on both. When I
unplugg the Lan interface of one them, this router is still reachable by the
I have even put the ethernet into shutdown !!
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49375t=49347
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure
Richard, not that I doubt you ( because I have never tried this myself ) but
would you mind posting the relevant configs and the results of the ping to
the list so we all can see? simple cut and paste is fine.
Knowing that it works, lets see if intellectually speaking we can come up
with a good
No prob, see below.
RB#sh run
Building configuration...
Current configuration:
!
version 11.2
no service password-encryption
no service udp-small-servers
no service tcp-small-servers
!
hostname RB
!
enable password cisco
!
no ip domain-lookup
!
interface Ethernet0
ip address 192.168.1.1
As you see, the serial are configured with IP unnumbered, but when deb IP
packet is on, It is as if the IP address belongs to the serial interface.
Regards.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49387t=49347
--
FAQ, list
I'll be, this must be a new feature as I know this wasn't always the
case.
Dave
richard dumoulin wrote:
No prob, see below.
RB#sh run
Building configuration...
Current configuration:
!
version 11.2
no service password-encryption
no service udp-small-servers
no service
That is good. I wasn't saying necessarily that it wasn't, I was just
saying that the ISP essentials quote you gave didn't say that it wasn't
specifically.
Again though, can you quote msgs to make the trail easier for those of us
who don't a) read the newsgroup, and b) arrange by threads.
JMHO - comment below:
richard dumoulin wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Priscilla,
Do you remember the discussion about IP unnumbered ? Sure you do. You
wrote
Now, network management is a concern, however. If your serial interface
is
unnumbered, you can't ping it or send it
At 6:25 PM + 7/21/02, Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote:
Theoretically, if you put an IP address on a cow, I bet you could ping the
cow. You might need a sling-shot though... for the implementation to work
properly, but I'd bet you'd get a response!
Doesn't Gateway already put them there?
I don't see a conflict either. The ISP's responsibility ends at the
external gateway router, unless maintenance is outsourced. If the
ISP provides the router, it may be responsible for the LAN interface,
but not for the reachability of devices on that LAN. More commonly,
the ISP simply
At 5:25 PM + 7/21/02, richard dumoulin wrote:
Well, I interpret it that you can ping the serial, no ?
I would assume that. It makes no sense for an ISP to use unnumbered
interfaces, because it easily can use /30 or /31 private addresses.
It could use a small part of its registered address
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
At 6:25 PM + 7/21/02, Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote:
Theoretically, if you put an IP address on a cow, I bet you could ping
the
cow. You might need a sling-shot though... for the implementation to
work
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
At 5:25 PM + 7/21/02, richard dumoulin wrote:
Well, I interpret it that you can ping the serial, no ?
I would assume that. It makes no sense for an ISP to use unnumbered
interfaces, because it easily can
I gather that the lack of response from Priscilla herself in indicative that
she, at least, has some kind of life ;-
Chuck
richard dumoulin wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Priscilla,
Do you remember the discussion about IP unnumbered ? Sure you do. You
wrote
Now, network
It would help if you quoted msg's in your responses btw :)
The ISP essentials book does not indicate that the interfaces would be
pingable, simply that ISP's can generally tolerate the LAN side of a
customer prem router changing state without an alarm being triggered due to
the in between
24 matches
Mail list logo
