I think you missed the line vty 0 4 Config and set a password on it!!
fyi
""Beckwith Rod"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello,
>
> This looks to be a very straight forward configuration, but it is
> giving me fits. It's a simple Multilink PPP setup.
>
> I
ok.. I only asked because in telnet/ssh/tracert, the far end will try to
resolve the dns address of the source ip before moving forward in the
connection state machine. this is in contrast to icmp echo's where a reply
will occur. beyond filters, this is really the only other common reason
fo
Hi
I have had this issue before, but with an isdn setup. The issue was to do
with "ip route-cache" not being implemented properly with NAT. I needed to
remove "ip route-cache" as a workaround. So try and remove "ip route-cache"
on all active interfaces. It’s a bug, but i have misplaced the bug
Try putting 'no ip address' on the serial interfaces.
You don't need a ip unnumbered or ip address on them
if they are part of a multilink-group.
Have you tried removing the NAT? Don't see a complete
config for NAT so can't see if it may be a issue.
Erick
--- Beckwith Rod wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
Hello,
This looks to be a very straight forward configuration, but it is
giving me fits. It's a simple Multilink PPP setup.
I can "ping" from Router A to Router B, but I can't do any
TCP i.e. Telnet, SSH, Traceroute, etc.
All I want to be able to do is telnet from
Router A to Router B...
The
you can only have one address per interface in an OSPF area. The secondary
can only be in the same area as the primary for OSPF to generate an LSA for
that network. If you want to get it to work and don't have another physical
interface, use a loopback and remove the secondary.Waqar Ahmed wrote:
Hi,
I am facing problem in OSPF routing. I have configured
area 0 for ethernet network and area 1 for point to
point network as secondary IP address on same ethernet
interface. I have advertise both networks in OSPF but
could not get routes of secondary network.
Please advice.
_
>From what I've heard the behavior was changed in 12.1 in that the default is
no longer automatically inected into rip.
JR
--
Johnny Routin
The "Routin" One
""John Dorffler"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Thanks for all the input on this. BTW, here is what I
Thanks for all the input on this. BTW, here is what I had on the router
trying to inject the default route:
router rip
network 192.168.12.0
network 192.168.23.0
!
ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.12.1
On a set of 2500 routers, this did not work as planned using 12.1.x. I tried
12.
:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Different type of intervlan routing problem... [7:35595]
A problem I have come across on the 3500XL switches and dot1q trunking is
when the XL switch expected the packets on the native VLAN to be untagged
and the device on the other end of the trunk expects
Yep, there is a bug in older versions of IOS that supported
dot1q trunks. If you're running an older version, you can't
have the native VLAN on a subinterface. Place the
configuration for the native (untagged) VLAN on the major
interface and only use subinterfaces for the other tagged VLANs.
A problem I have come across on the 3500XL switches and dot1q trunking is
when the XL switch expected the packets on the native VLAN to be untagged
and the device on the other end of the trunk expects the packets to be
tagged. This prevents communication through the trunk on the native VLAN.
The
PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Different type of intervlan routing problem... [7:35595]
If it helps, think of the host ("Switch" X) as L3 switch on the other end of
the dot1q trunk. Switch Z is a L3 switch (Extreme 48port).
E: Different type of intervlan routing problem... [7:35595]
If it helps, think of the host ("Switch" X) as L3 switch on the other end of
the dot1q trunk. Switch Z is a L3 switch (Extreme 48port).
Router A Switch Y --- Switch Z
10.6.200.1 802.1q 10.6.
If it helps, think of the host ("Switch" X) as L3 switch on the other end of
the dot1q trunk. Switch Z is a L3 switch (Extreme 48port).
Router A Switch Y --- Switch Z
10.6.200.1 802.1q 10.6.200.3 802.1q 10.6.200.2
|
Sent: 2/17/02 11:52 PM
Subject: RE: Different type of intervlan routing problem... [7:35595]
The device connected to the 1Q trunk must be a trunk
connection. The host on the other end of the trunk link
will not usually respond to your ping when the link is a
trunk. If you want the host to respond yo
PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Sean Knox
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 11:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Different type of intervlan routing problem... [7:35595]
Hi all, I'm having a problem with intervlan ro
Hi all, I'm having a problem with intervlan routing on a 3500XL. Port
FastEthernet0/17 is an access link and the host, part of VLAN23, is working
fine and can traverse the network. FastEthernet 0/18 is a 802.1q trunk link
connected to a 802.1q aware host (a special network device my company
makes)
I saw the 100 routers in an area and had to share this!
I had an instructor a couple of years ago that worked for IBM-Europe. He
said they
tried to keep European areas for countries. 1 Country = 1 Area. This all
came up when
another student asked, "what is a good measure for the number of rout
Well, I wish it was as easy as saying someone tweaked with the timers on the
server but for some reason all our servers are set the same way and so all
of our routers have to be set the same way as well. Not only that, but if
you look at that TokenRing interface, we are using administrative
mac-ad
Very interesting. I wonder why someone would tweak those values on the
server in the first place. Unless all the devices on a LAN segment are
using the same values, problems are going to arise. From the sounds of
it, someone changed the server settings and didn't bother to let
everyone else kno
Yup, I made the changes on the TokenRing interface itself, not the WAN
interface. The original config I posted listed just one of the routers that
was connected via a serial interface (all T1 lines). There are actually 7
serial connections to this and five token rings. Each interface is its own
IIRC, in the config you posted the intervals were changed on a token
ring interface. Is that how you have the 7204 and 2600 connected? If
so, are they the only devices on the token ring?
John
>>> "Fraasch James" 2/5/02 1:58:02 PM >>>
It is Cisco to Cisco. 7204 to 2600.
'By changing the updat
this should also work:
ipx update interval rip changes-only
ipx update interval sap changes-only
those are on the interface itself
-Patrick
>>> "Fraasch James" 02/05/02 03:58PM >>>
It is Cisco to Cisco. 7204 to 2600.
'By changing the update interval from 1 minute to 5 minutes you are
preventi
It is Cisco to Cisco. 7204 to 2600.
'By changing the update interval from 1 minute to 5 minutes you are
preventing the route and server from flapping and thereby keeping your
connection to the server up.'
This is what the Cisco tech said- AFTER I had already put the command in. I
am not sure why
was it traversing two separate vendors by the time it hit the server?
I know with 3com and cisco, the defaults for rip and sap updates are
different. 3com defaults to update on change only...where cisco's defaults
are timed. When you connect both vendors together, cisco will send updates
but 3c
The server must be set with the non-standard 300 second timer also? That
would be my theory.
Priscilla
At 02:50 PM 2/5/02, Tom Martin wrote:
>Does anyone have any idea why this worked??? Setting the RIP and SAP
>timers on a __LAN__ link should have had no positive effect. It seems
>like the o
Does anyone have any idea why this worked??? Setting the RIP and SAP
timers on a __LAN__ link should have had no positive effect. It seems
like the only perceivable change would be the flapping of remote networks
and servers -- assuming that the timers were not modified on the server
also.
Any
Ah, to be a network engineer!!! The fun!!!
So here it is, 28 hours later I have fallen across the solution to the
problem I posted yesterday where people were not able to access an IPX
server. Users were actually able to access it but for no more than a few
minutes at a time.
Had to add the fol
on the WAN interface of the Cisco router. I did not catch which was which
from your configs.
Chuck
""Fraasch James"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I just heard that it is not just the one site that cannot access this
server
> but indeed it is the entire network
I just heard that it is not just the one site that cannot access this server
but indeed it is the entire network so it looks like a config issue on the
7204 itself.
For Chuck, which interface would you suggest I put the no ipx route? Or
would it go on each interface of the router?
Thanks for the
The new router is the COUR001, the 7204. The server needing to be accessed
is on the 172.25.30.0 ring on COUR001. Here is the rest of the config for
the COUR002 router:
ip subnet-zero
ipx routing 0040.d246.d185
interface Serial0/0
mac-address 0200.1099.41c2
mtu 2044
ip address 172.25.252.25
has the ring of a problem I have made several posts about.
try adding "no ipx route-cache" on the appropriate interface of the Cisco
router.
check the very recent archives for my posts and John Neiberger's posts on
IPX problems over the past couple of weeks.
Also - tell me if that solves the pr
I'm not sure how much this helps, especially since you can see the
server in the SAP table, but can you do a novell ping from COUR002 to
the server?
Are there any other users elsewhere that *are* able to access this
server?
John
>>> "Fraasch James" 2/4/02 2:24:31 PM >>>
This should be a good o
Which router is the new one, COUR002 or COUR001?
What is the LAN side on COUR002? Can you send info on it too?
Priscilla
At 04:24 PM 2/4/02, Fraasch James wrote:
>This should be a good one. I switched out an old IBM 6611 for a Cisco 7204
>this weekend. There is a point to point T-1 from COUR0
This should be a good one. I switched out an old IBM 6611 for a Cisco 7204
this weekend. There is a point to point T-1 from COUR002 to COUR001.
Encapsulation is still PPP (didn't want to change too much. IBM requires PPP
encapsulation). People from the COUR002 router are not able to access a
p
uot; wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am having a routing problem and am hoping someone can point me in the
> > right direction. Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Lab Setup:
> > - I have a pair of 2501&#
Nortel products unstable noo heh
Kinda funny as shasta is a generic soda pop in the states and does make you
burp a lot..
kinda fitting I guess
Oz
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=8&t=33262
--
FAQ, list ar
whether this is IOS
version dependant.
Gaz
""Alan McEntee"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello,
>
> I am having a routing problem and am hoping someone can point me in the
> right direction. Thanks in advance.
>
> Lab
to those folks that replied about the above problem about the 6260 DSlam
and the 7200 series router and the "other" layer 3 device you were right
about the "other" device not knowing about the routes...the "other" device
is a Nortel Shasta and I dont like fooling with the shasta as its a tad
unsta
Hello,
I am having a routing problem and am hoping someone can point me in the
right direction. Thanks in advance.
Lab Setup:
- I have a pair of 2501's (R1 and R2) hooked up via the serial ports.
(10.0.1.1 and 10.0.1.2)
- The eth0 port of R1 is connected to a switch with 5 PCs and a Cisc
pings to the other end of the tunnel.
good luck... let us know how you fare.
-e-
- Original Message -
From: "Hamid"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:37 AM
Subject: Strange Routing problem !!! [7:26196]
> Hi ,
>
> I want to make a policy routing on one o
Hamid,
Try adding your route-map to the main FastEthernet0/0 as well as the sub
interface.
-Richard
""Hamid"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi ,
>
> I want to make a policy routing on one of Interfaces, and I have defined a
> route-map for it:( IP addresses ar
Richard
NO, the traffic generated by the router is not in mind. I am taliking about
a couple of hosts located in a VLAN.
""Richard Newman"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hamid,
> Are you sourcing your traffic from the router? By default any traffic
> sourced fro
Hamid,
Are you sourcing your traffic from the router? By default any traffic
sourced from the router will not be policy routed. You need to add a IP
LOCAL POLICY ROUTE-MAP routemap.
Hope this helps.
-Richard Newman
""Hamid"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi
Hi ,
I want to make a policy routing on one of Interfaces, and I have defined a
route-map for it:( IP addresses are changed)
!
route-map TEST permit 2
match ip address 133
set interface tunnel 0
!
access-list 133 permit ip 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.255 any
access-list 134 deny ip 192.168.100.0
on
options at:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet
HTH,
Kent
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Leonardo Borda
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Routing problem using Cisco and W2000 [7:24842]
I a
You need to have Win2K perform routing between the 192.x.x.x and 172.x.x.x
subnets. Can't offer too much in the way of specifics to accomplish this,
but off the top of my head, I'd say you could configure Internet Connection
Sharing to make this work, although I'm pretty sure Win2K will do straig
I am having problems to configure the following scenery. Please
suggestions will be very appreciated. :)
LAN: 192.168.25.0
I0: 192.168.25.96
I1: 172.16.1.1
E0/0: 172.16.1.2
S0/0: 200.176.x.y (Valid Internet Address)
LAN>I0(Windows 2000)I1>E0/0(Cisco1600 using NAT)S0/0-> Internet
Hi there,
I have a config as following:
R1750(L) --- R7206 -- R1750(R)
R1750(L):
Serial 0: 20.1.1.1/30
R7206:
Serial 0: 20.1.1.2/30
Serial 1: some IP
Tunnel 1: 10.4.1.1/30 over the serial link 1
R1750(R):
Tunnel 1: 10.4.1.2/30 over the serial link 0
Serial 0: some IP
At the l
"Arun"
Reply-To: "Arun"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Routing problem. PLS help -- Urgent [7:13474]
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 05:26:45 -0400
Hi
20.1.1.0/30
10.4.1.0/30
20.1.1.0/24
check above the subnet mask .do see anything there.
regards
""Dave W."&qu
Hi
20.1.1.0/30
10.4.1.0/30
20.1.1.0/24
check above the subnet mask .do see anything there.
regards
""Dave W."" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi there,
>
> I have the following config:
>
> R1750(L) --- R7206 -- R1750(R)
>
> R1750(L):
> S
Hi there,
I have the following config:
R1750(L) --- R7206 -- R1750(R)
R1750(L):
Serial 0: 20.1.1.1/30
R7206:
Serial 0: 20.1.1.2/30
Serial 1: some IP
Tunnel 1: 10.4.1.2/30 over the serial link 1
R1750(R):
Tunnel 1: 10.4.1.2/30 over the serial link 0
Serial 0: some IP
At the le
Thanks for the responses everyone. I found out what the problem was. I was
missing a route on the end router (which I had to add later in place of our
firewall). My 'little' network is working fine.
Thanks everyone,
fartcatcher.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Erick B.") w
Well, since these are directly connected networks
EIGRP isn't used. Check the default gateways of the
PCs you are pinging and make sure it is set to either
e0 or e1, or they have a route back to the other
network with e0 or e1 as the next hop.
If there is another router off e0 or e1 speaking EIG
Fartcatcher (great name!), the previous 2 posts have good info in them, so
check that stuff out. If everything is kosher (no offense to those members
of the Jewish faith!), then you might check that the router is setup to for
classless addressing. I can't remember if that version of IOS has "ip
2001 10:42 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Feeling a bit dumb today, need help with routing problem.
>
>
> Hello everyone, I have a problem and no it's not personal
> (hah!).I am having
> trouble getting a router to route between two networks
> (10.166.x.x
If both of those networks are directly attached, your choice of routing
protocol is irrelevant. I would check the usual: host configurations,
IP addresses, subnet masks, etc.
If this isn't a production router, turn on debugging and see if that
gives you any clues. debug ip packet will show you
Hello everyone, I have a problem and no it's not personal (hah!).I am having
trouble getting a router to route between two networks (10.166.x.x /24 and
10.20.30.x /24). I have a cisco 1605 (running 11.2) that has two ethernet
interfaces. On eth0 I have the 10.166.x.x network, on the other
10.2
hursday, February 01, 2001 5:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Extremely Strange Routing Problem! (update)
More info. The router does not appear to realize that the "directly"
connected next-hop address is unreachable.
RouterA#sho ip route 10.2.7.75
Routing entry for 10.
-
From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 02 February 2001 01:27
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Extremely Strange Routing Problem! (update)
More info. The router does not appear to realize that the "directly"
connected next-hop address is unreachable.
RouterA#sh
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Extremely Strange Routing Problem! (update)
More info. The router does not appear to realize that the "directly"
connected next-hop address is unreachable.
RouterA#sho ip route 10.2.7.75
Routing entry for 10.0.0.0/8
Known via "static",
More info. The router does not appear to realize that the "directly"
connected next-hop address is unreachable.
RouterA#sho ip route 10.2.7.75
Routing entry for 10.0.0.0/8
Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 (connected)
Redistributing via eigrp 1, rip
Advertised by eigrp 1
Ok, this is completely baking my noodle. If someone can solve this, I will
fly to your location and kiss you on the forehead.
Here is the layout: RouterA has two frame relay PVCs, point to point, that
go to router B. EIGRP is running on one link but not the other. (RIP is
running on routerA
Keith,
If I understand your description correctly you have:
Internet ---R1---PIXR2/\-R3-LAN
plus 2 DMZ's on pix.
For basic comms you need:
Default route on R3 pointing to R2
Default route on R2 pointing to Pix Inside interface
Default 'route outside' on Pix pointing to R1
Defau
C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: routing problem.
> Hi..
>
> I think I missed something in the question. The setup I gave in
> my earlier posting is a part of the actual setup, which is
>
Hi..
I think I missed something in the question. The setup I gave in
my earlier posting is a part of the actual setup, which is
Internet---3640router---pix---router---T1 linkrouter--LAN.
There are 2 more interfaces(DMZs) on the PIX apart form this
connection. Basically we are trying to mak
>Hi Group,
>
>I have a setup something like this.
>
>PIX---(eth)RouterT1 link---Router---LAN(remote site)
>
>The requirement si that I a should be able to see the LAn at
>remote side on the PIX interface that is connected to the
>Ethernet of the router at the central office.
Does "see the LAN
Hi Group,
I have a setup something like this.
PIX---(eth)RouterT1 link---Router---LAN(remote site)
The requirement si that I a should be able to see the LAn at
remote side on the PIX interface that is connected to the
Ethernet of the router at the central office. If I enable
routing to rout
Wow, one person replied, thanks Kenny.
However, I cannot do BGP, as indicated in the e-mail.
I realize that this is the optimum solution, but
cannot do this.
So my solution is as follows (yet to be tested):
PAT everything out of the PIX to a PacBell public IP,
except for the public servers, wh
Ask PACBell for a /24 and coordinate with the govt ISP to route it and do
BGP. There's also a very intersting article on Cisco somewhere about using
NAT in this situation. Check this out:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/iosw/ioft/ionetn/tech/emios_wp.htm
I've never implemented it but woul
Hi, this is what I can think of. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.
If your route is too specific and not able to be accepted by your upstream
provider(s), the next good thing I can think of is to use a load balancer
and insert it between the firewall and the web servers.
- You obtain another blo
I am currently adding another circuit to an additional
ISP for my network. I want to be able to use the
first circuit for a redundant backup but am not clear
on how to accomplish this.
The setup:
(diagram located at
http://www.geocities.com/bwilcox_email/Routing_Design.html)
- watch word wrap
In
Title: Trace routing problem
hey guys,
I have a small office LAN that's running NAT on the Cisco router and Shiva VPN tunnelling. The workstations on the LAN all have private IP addresses assigned by DHCP. Some workstations can trace route with no problem and other can not at all. Wha
Check the default gateway on the server and routing
table on the server (route print in windows). Try a
extended ping on the remote router from a interface
the servers not attached to. If it doesn't respond
back to the extended ping from a different network #
the server doesn't have a proper rou
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all, i have a problem connecting to a server in one of our sites, i can
> ping the router on the remote site, but cannot ping the server, when i
> telnet unto the remote router i am able to ping the server, any ideas
> please
Check the setting on
to the remote server,
but it can't get back.
Bow down to the power of ping! ;-)
Sincerely,
Bradley J. Wilson
CCNA, CCDA, MCSE, CCSE, NNCSS, CNX-A, MCT, CTT
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 12:05 PM
Subject: could
this be a routing problem
Is ping, or your connection, being blocked by an access-list of firewall?
Are tcp/udp small services enabled?
--
E A Moran
Network Engineer
CNE,MCSE,CCNA,CCDA
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
http://www.telecomsys.com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PRO
ut it can't get back.
>
> Bow down to the power of ping! ;-)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Bradley J. Wilson
> CCNA, CCDA, MCSE, CCSE, NNCSS, CNX-A, MCT, CTT
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September
works because the router's lan
interface is on the same network as the server and no routing is involved
just my guess
daveh
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 12:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: could this be a routi
Is ping, or your connection, being blocked by an access-list of firewall?
Are tcp/udp small services enabled?
--
E A Moran
Network Engineer
CNE,MCSE,CCNA,CCDA
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
http://www.telecomsys.com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]..
Hi all, i have a problem connecting to a server in one of our sites, i can
ping the router on the remote site, but cannot ping the server, when i
telnet unto the remote router i am able to ping the server, any ideas
please
___
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://ww
herefore when you PING from routerA your ISP would
need
> to have a route to that IP network for the packets to find their way back.
>
> Arya
>
>
> >From: Filomena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Filomena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
I'd like to thank everybody for the help. It was the
problem with firewall setup not letting the RouterA
subnet through.
Filomena
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
_
the packets
> to find their way back.
>
> Arya
>
>
> >From: Filomena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Filomena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Please help with the routing problem
> >Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 16:07:06 -
way back.
Arya
>From: Filomena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Filomena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Please help with the routing problem
>Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 16:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Hi, everyone, I would appreciate if you could help
uple quick questions..
Kenny
- Original Message -
From: "Filomena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 4:07 PM
Subject: Please help with the routing problem
> Hi, everyone, I would appreciate if you could help me.
>
>
Hi, everyone, I would appreciate if you could help me.
Here is the network setup:
-->E0-RouterA-S0<-->S0-RouterB-E0<-->Firewall<-->E0-RouterC-S0<--->Internet
The problem is that RouterA cannot access Internet.
RouterB is configured with default route pointing to
the f
I've recently been looking around in a network here, and basically take a
setup like this: (eigrp)
r1 <-> r2 <-> r3 <-> r4 <-> r5 <-> r6 <-> r7
consider r1 and r7 to be end points, and r5 to be a major hub router.
if i do a trace from r4 to r7 everything is fine
if i do a trace from r3 to r7, i
89 matches
Mail list logo
