A cisco router with the default (ip proxy-arp) enabled on
the interface will spend all its time doing arp/proxy-arp for the hosts and
it will actually work believe it or not.
I spent quite a few cycles trying to convince Cisco that changing this
default in
the next major release is a
Please do NOT confuse PHYSICAL plumbing with LOGICAL plumbing.
Based on your description, router A and B ARE NOT on the same
broadcast domain, with respect to 172.16.16/24.
THey are on the same broadcast domain as 10.10.10.0/30
But thats it.
In otherwords, No it is NOT technically
With the right MASK they could be local :)
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:15:59AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
RD When I setup a situation like the above, with Router B
RD advertising the 172.16.16.0/24 to router A, router A sees a
At 12:21 PM 10/6/2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
I've already had several direct replies saying to manually configure the
172.16 subnet on router A. Sure, that will work, but I'm looking for a
solution that doesn't require manual configuration of all the routers
involved.
Hey, where can I buy
Proxy arp will still send the data thro the other router tho, the only
difference is now router B believes router A to be the destination
station. Seems like your worse off than you were before. (Plus I hate proxy arp
in non-SOHO environments!)
Steve
--
Stephen J. Wilcox
BSc (Hons), CCNA,
Of Ralph Doncaster
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 12:56 AM
To: Jason Lixfeld
Cc: 'Alex Rubenstein'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: iBGP next hop and multi-access media
It's a theoretical question. So far I've had one person email
me saying
OSPF can advertise a subnet as local on a shared
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
When you setup a secondary ip on an interface
int fa0/0
ip address a.b.c.d e.f.g.h secondary
How does it determine where to send the packets? ARP.
Which is the same as adding the route described above.
From what I've read so far, it looks
A and B are connected via the same multi-access media. It is technically
possible for B to tell A you can reach 172.16.16.0/24 on the same media
that you receive this update on. However what people seem to be saying
is that there is no dynamic routing protocol that implements this.
Nope,
Manually configuring a static route in router A would achieve the result:
ip route 172.16.16.0 255.255.255.0 fa0/0
Why are we doing basic IP routing 101 on NANOG?
OK, since it's so basic why don't you explain how to have router A
dynamically learn from router B that there is a
I guess I don't know this because I've never tried it. But, how does the
router determine where to send the packets for a route statement as
specified above (ip route a.b.c.d e.f.g.h f0/0) ?
When you setup a secondary ip on an interface
int fa0/0
ip address a.b.c.d e.f.g.h
?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 12:43 AM
To: Alex Rubenstein
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media
My understanding
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 11:40:11PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
Manually configuring a static route in router A would achieve the result:
ip route 172.16.16.0 255.255.255.0 fa0/0
However, I'm surprised that there's no dynamic routing protocol that
allows you to do everything you can with
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 11:40:11PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
Manually configuring a static route in router A would achieve the result:
ip route 172.16.16.0 255.255.255.0 fa0/0
However, I'm surprised that there's no dynamic routing protocol
Can someone please explain to me *why* are you trying to come up with
*complicated* configurations as opposite to
(a) defining your connected routes on all the routers that would be using
it.
I've asked because I wanted to know if any routing protocol redistributes
information about
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
Ralph, how do you intend on getting traffic *OUT* of this subnet?
Static arp entries on all the hosts? Proxy arp? It seems like that would
be a lot more work and much more failure prone in the
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
It seems pretty obvious to me that if you have a an ethernet segment with
multiple routers on it that adding a secondary IP to each one is more
complicated and error-prone than adding it to one and having a dynamic
routing protocol notify the rest
On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:16:43 CDT, Pete Templin said:
They are dynamic routing protocols, not dynamic gateway-creation
protocols. You're asking iBGP to create an interface. iBGP (and other
dynamic routing protocols) don't do that.
I suppose they *could* - the fun then starts when you get a
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
[from previous mail]
Ralph, how do you intend on getting traffic *OUT* of this subnet?
Static arp entries on all the hosts? Proxy arp? It seems like that would
On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:37:16 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose they *could* - the fun then starts when you get a routing flap and
the other router tells you that you're not on one subnet because the subnet
is unreachable and would you please remove the interface? And I'm willing
to
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Clayton Fiske wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 04:25:00PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
A and B are connected via the same multi-access media. It is technically
possible for B to tell A you can reach 172.16.16.0/24 on the same media
that you receive this update on.
I've already had several direct replies saying to manually configure the
172.16 subnet on router A. Sure, that will work, but I'm looking for a
solution that doesn't require manual configuration of all the routers
involved.
Ralph Doncaster
principal, IStop.com
I've already had several direct replies saying to manually configure the
172.16 subnet on router A. Sure, that will work, but I'm looking for a
solution that doesn't require manual configuration of all the routers
involved.
Put another physical ethernet interface in router B and
move
Can you create another segment with 172.16.16? May be another dotq1q
interface?.
Regards
Ezequiel
On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 13:44, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
Background:
Router A and B are connected via a common ethernet segment 1. Router A
uses 10.10.10.1/30, and Router B uses 10.10.10.2/30.
A and B are connected via the same multi-access media. It is technically
possible for B to tell A you can reach 172.16.16.0/24 on the same media
that you receive this update on. However what people seem to be saying
is that there is no dynamic routing protocol that implements this.
Ralph
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 04:25:00PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
A and B are connected via the same multi-access media. It is technically
possible for B to tell A you can reach 172.16.16.0/24 on the same media
that you receive this update on. However what people seem to be saying
is that
No its not possible to say you can reach the subnet on the same media...
IP maps to the [Ethernet] with ARP, but before a packet is passed down to MAC
via ARP it is routed and if there is no route to the connected ethernet then it
will necessarily need to use the other router.
You must have
RD Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 12:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
RD From: Ralph Doncaster
RD Router A and B are connected via a common ethernet segment 1.
RD Router A uses 10.10.10.1/30, and Router B uses 10.10.10.2/30.
RD Router B also has another subnet configured for ethernet
RD segment 1; 172.16.16.0/24.
RD
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media
RD When I setup a situation like the above, with Router B advertising
RD the 172.16.16.0/24 to router A, router A sees a next hop of
RD 10.10.10.2. This is not good since packets from A going to the
RD 172.16.16
RD Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 21:05:32 -0400 (EDT)
RD From: Ralph Doncaster
RD Not really, what I want is router A to learn that ther is no
RD next hop IP- the subnet is on the local ethernet.
As others are saying... it isn't local. It's not local
unless in the same subnet. Physical topology
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, E.B. Dreger wrote:
RD Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 21:05:32 -0400 (EDT)
RD From: Ralph Doncaster
RD Not really, what I want is router A to learn that ther is no
RD next hop IP- the subnet is on the local ethernet.
As others are saying... it isn't local. It's not local
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
As others are saying... it isn't local. It's not local
unless in the same subnet. Physical topology often correlates
with higher layers, but it's not strictly 1:1.
Manually configuring a
OK, I'll bite.
I've been doing ip route statements going on 8 years now, and I can't
imagine why ever -- and how it would even work -- you'd want to ip route a
netblock with a next hop of a multi-access brandcast media. As in, the
next hop is still truly undetermined.
I guess I don't know
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
I've been doing ip route statements going on 8 years now, and I can't
imagine why ever -- and how it would even work -- you'd want to ip route a
netblock with a next hop of a multi-access brandcast media. As in, the
next hop is still truly
Aha.
So, if you route to a ethernet interface, it will try to arp for that
address on that subnet, even without having a local address on the same
subnet?
This seems to me to be something you don't want to do.
Is the entire route valid as long as the router can ARP for one of the
addresses
My understanding is the route is valid as long as the interface is
up; just like adding a secondary IP on the interface.
Ralph Doncaster
principal, IStop.com
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Aha.
So, if you route to a ethernet interface, it will try to arp for that
address
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 12:43 AM
To: Alex Rubenstein
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media
My understanding is the route is valid as long as the interface is
up; just like adding a secondary IP on the interface.
Ralph Doncaster
principal
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
My understanding is the route is valid as long as the interface is
up; just like adding a secondary IP on the interface.
If you are going through all this trouble, why not just secondary the
interface, while you at it run HSRP or VRRP and
PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 12:43 AM
To: Alex Rubenstein
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media
My understanding is the route is valid as long as the interface is
up; just like adding a secondary IP
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 12:15:40AM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
OK, I'll bite.
I've been doing ip route statements going on 8 years now, and I can't
imagine why ever -- and how it would even work -- you'd want to ip route a
netblock with a next hop of a multi-access brandcast media.
39 matches
Mail list logo
