I think support for /31 masks was introduced in 12.2.8 though I'm
sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken;)
Dave
s vermill wrote:
MADMAN wrote:
Glad you got it figured out and I hope you learned some
reason(s) not
to do unnumbered. I can't think of and good reasons for it and
if you
If it is a loopback address lets say 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.252 the router
will see the netblock local to the router. Lets say the other end is
192.168.1.1 255.255.255.252 Point-to-point. Try putting a route statement ip
route 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.255 out the interface. This creates a more
Hi Ladrach
I tried with the route statement. it worked perfectly. but the problem is
when i am running the routing protocol. i have given detailed configs for 3
different cases in the previous mails.
Regards
Deepak
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62193t=62134
Deepak N wrote:
HI All
I have simple configuration of HDLC connected back to back.
If i give ip unnumbered at one end and the static ip address at
the other end, I cant ping the either end. But when i give show
ip int brief, it shows the line and protocol are up.
If i give ip unnumbered
Hi Vermill
Now I got the point. So when i am using the numbered interface, the router
tries to reach the next hop via the next hop ip address, in my case it is
behind the directly connected interface.But it has no way of finding the
next hop ip address behind the unnumbered interface. So it was
Deepak N wrote:
Hi Vermill
Now I got the point. So when i am using the numbered
interface, the router tries to reach the next hop via the next
hop ip address, in my case it is behind the directly connected
interface.But it has no way of finding the next hop ip address
behind the
Glad you got it figured out and I hope you learned some reason(s) not
to do unnumbered. I can't think of and good reasons for it and if you
running out of addresses I have an RFC full of them for you;)
Dave
Deepak N wrote:
Hi Vermill
Now I got the point. So when i am using the numbered
MADMAN wrote:
Glad you got it figured out and I hope you learned some
reason(s) not
to do unnumbered. I can't think of and good reasons for it and
if you
running out of addresses I have an RFC full of them for you;)
Dave,
I heard rumor to the effect that Cisco would introduce /31 mask
In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote:
I heard rumor to the effect that Cisco would introduce /31 mask support
for
serial p-t-p links. Anyone tried that yet? I keep forgeting to when on a
router with shiny new IOS.
It works well on all platforms I've used it on. Introduced in 12.2(2)T,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaj J. Niemi) wrote:
In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote:
I heard rumor to the effect that Cisco would introduce /31
mask support for
serial p-t-p links. Anyone tried that yet? I keep
forgeting to when on a
router with shiny new IOS.
It works well on all
Hi Deepak
When you configure ip unnnumbered on an interfaces it looks like an
interface with a /0 mask.
On the other side with a configured ip address on the interface you have a
different mask. So the two connected interfaces don't belong to the same
network.
What you could do is to configure on
Hi Claudio
Thanks for quick response.
But i have tried that options. i defined a static ip route to the network
on the other end through the connecting interface.it did work.
But when i am using the routing protocol, i am not able to ping either end.
But if i make the other end also
Which is failing to get to the other side? The ping (echo) or the ping reply
(echo reply). Pinging could fail for either reason. Debug icmp and you might
get more info.
Also, send us your configs. Help us help you.
Priscilla
Deepak N wrote:
Hi Claudio
Thanks for quick response.
But i
Hi
What kind of routing protocol are you using? Ospf can not build an adjacency
this way.
With other routing protocols you should be able to exchange routing tables.
But you won't be able to send traffic, because the router does not know
where the next-hop address is. So you still need this
Hi all
The following are the configurations of the routers and the ping outputs.
I have given 3 cases.
1) When ip unnumbered at one end and static routes are defined
sdmheadend#sh run
Building configuration...
Current configuration : 1115 bytes
!
version 12.2
service timestamps debug
Hi
Give us a look at the routing table from both routers.
The router with the configured ip address on the Serial interface does not
know how to get to the next hop address.
Do you see in the routing table the next-hop address or the outbound
interface?
see you
Message Posted at:
So it fails when you have numbered on one side and unnumbered on the other
side and you are running RIP?
What did show ip route tell you when the problem occured? Were the
relevant routes in both routers' tables?
What address does sdmheadend use to send the echo? If it's using
172.20.110.10,
HI Claudio
Please find the following for the different cases i mentioned.
Regards
Deepak
1)When ip unnumbered at one end and static routes are defined
sdmheadend#sh ip rou
Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O -
Hi
when i did debug ip icmp, i got the message that its unroutable when one
end is numbered and the other end is unnumbered. This is expected because it
doesnt have the next hop ip address to reach. But i expect the same
behaviour when both are unnumbered. But it is able to send the rip updates
Do these labs for better understanding...
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a
0080094e8d.shtml
WATCH THE WORD WRAP!
Deepak N wrote:
Hi all
The following are the configurations of the routers and the
ping outputs.
I have given 3 cases.
1) When ip
20 matches
Mail list logo
