From: Stanislav Sinyagin (SSinyagin@xxxxxx)
Date: Tue Dec 28 1999 - 10:08:23 GMT-3
looks good, but you set R1's DLSW peer as 200.200.100.1, thus awoiding
DLSW-over-NAT problem.
The main difficulty is when you're obliged to use lower than 137.1.4.100
address as a peer-id on R1. Then you have to do two-ways NAT translation.
Stan
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Hedlund <BHedlund@LifeTimeFitness.com>
To: 'Stanislav Sinyagin' <SSinyagin@mtu.ru>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 23:56
Subject: RE: NAT advertizing contest
>
> Stan,
>
> I decided to take you up on your challenge today. When you first sent it
> out I was working on some other labs and didnt want to distract myself.
>
> Having completed it, I am very glad I did it. It was well worth the time.
> That was a good scenario and I appreciate the challenge.
> I could definately see that such a scenario could be on the CCIE lab exam.
>
> Thanks!
>
> I got it to work as you requested.
> I want keeping track of time but I think it took me about 3 hours.
> I stumbled a little bit on the DLSW part. First I figured out I needed a
> static translation on R5 and then there was some confusion on what the local
> peer-id should be on R8.
>
> However I used different router names than you did.
> Plus, I added a router to the "inside" so I could do a DLSW connection to
> the outside.
> I didnt have a viable interface for it on R6.
>
>
> R8 --- X25 --- R6 ---- Ethernet ---- R5 ---- PPP ---- R1
> <--indside NAT outside->
> To0
> E0
> <-------------------DLSW-------------------------->
>
> <-------------------Tunnel------------------------>
>
> I have attached the configs for each router.
>
> Let me know what you think.
> Feel free to critique.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Brad
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stanislav Sinyagin [mailto:SSinyagin@mtu.ru]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 9:17 AM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: NAT advertizing contest
> >
> >
> > Looks like my contest didn't meet any enthusiasm :)
> > I should say that I reworked this task from somebody's Lab
> > Exam memories,
> > and that guy has done it!
> > To be honest, I made it work after a day of f*cking...
> >
> > Good luck and great holidays,
> > Stan
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Stanislav Sinyagin <SSinyagin@mtu.ru>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 23:12
> > Subject: NAT advertizing contest
> >
> >
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > > Here's an untypical scenario I came across during my studies, in
> > > someone's old papers. I implemented it in my test lab, and I think
> > > that would be useful for you too. Who provides the best
> > (the easiest,
> > > the most reliable, the most concise...) solution ?
> > >
> > > R4---------R3---------R2
> > > E0 E0 S0 S0
> > > DCE
> > >
> > > The routers are connected in chain, the actual interface types ate
> > > unneccessary. R2 and R2 run OSPF area 0. R3 acts as a NAT
> > gateway. R4
> > > is in inside NAT area, R2 is the outside network.
> > >
> > > In inside NAT area, the hosts have the network 10.0.0.0/23.
> > > They should be seen from the outside as 137.1.4.0/23.
> > > Also R4's loopback, 10.0.4.4, should be seen as 137.2.4.4 in the
> > > outside world.
> > > The outside world should see in its OSPF the 137.1.4.0/23 and
> > > 137.2.4.4/32 routes, and no route from 10.0.0.0/8 should be seen in
> > > the outside OSPF.
> > >
> > > R4 should ping and telnet any router in the outside world.
> > > There should be no statics on R4.
> > >
> > > Between R4 and R2 loopbacks there should be an DLSW link. Also (I
> > > didn't test it) I think there's no problem of installing a tunnel
> > > between them.
> > >
> > > Have fun,
> > > Stan
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stanislav Sinyagin MTU-Inform, Moscow
> > > Tel. (+7) (095) 258 7878 Fax (+7) (095) 258 7870
> > > E-mail: SSinyagin@mtu.ru http://www.mtu.ru
> > >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:22:00 GMT-3