Weird. I wasn't aware of that... just tried it and it
doesn't complain about overlapping subnet. I need to
research this. If anyone finds a Cisco.com page
explaining this let me know. I suspect I may have hard
time finding a doc page on it.
--- 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
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________
> > > 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]
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====
-----------------------------
Erick B | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://erickbe.home.dhs.org
-----------------------------
__________________________________________________
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]
