From: Brian Hescock (bhescock@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Aug 14 2000 - 23:57:11 GMT-3
ip unnumbered, by design, has to be on both sides of the link. It may
"work" with it on only one side but it could have undesirable effects down
the road... I believe the config proposed with ip unnumbered only had it
configured on one side of the link.
Brian
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Brian Edwards wrote:
> Simon, wins the cigar.
>
> Yeah, the key that I stumbled upon was that you can't make the R1 frame
> interface route IP; it must bridge and use a dead-end single-interface BVI.
> On r3 ethernet you can put the IP address directly on the interface (no IRB
> config), but Simon's solution using a BVI works too.
>
> I'll try out the unnumbered solution tonight.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Baxter [mailto:Simon.Baxter@au.logical.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 6:04 PM
> To: Brian Edwards; 'abdul_rahim@ccsi.canon.com'; dwyer@tatrc.org
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Free scenario
>
>
> Usual story, be careful to have the same 'type' code for each interface - ie
> don't have a routed interface at one end of a serial link and a bridged at
> the other.
>
> Dont forget those 'broadcasts'!!!
>
>
> hostname 1
> !
> frame-relay switching
> !
> interface Ethernet0
> no ip address
> shutdown
> !
> interface Serial0
> no ip address
> encapsulation frame-relay
> no ip mroute-cache
> clockrate 64000
> frame-relay map bridge 100 broadcast
> frame-relay interface-dlci 100
> frame-relay intf-type dce
> bridge-group 1
> !
> interface BVI1
> ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
> !
> ip classless
> !
> bridge irb
> bridge 1 protocol ieee
> bridge 1 route ip
> !
> end
>
> hostname 2
> !
> interface Ethernet0
> no ip address
> bridge-group 1
> !
> interface Serial0
> no ip address
> encapsulation frame-relay
> no ip mroute-cache
> frame-relay map bridge 100 broadcast
> bridge-group 1
> !
> interface BVI1
> ip address 10.1.1.2 255.255.255.0
> !
> ip classless
> !
> bridge irb
> bridge 1 protocol ieee
> bridge 1 route ip
> !
> end
>
> hostname 3
> !
> interface Ethernet0
> no ip address
> bridge-group 1
> !
> interface BVI1
> ip address 10.1.1.4 255.255.255.0
> !
> bridge irb
> bridge 1 protocol ieee
> bridge 1 route ip
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Edwards [mailto:bedwards@juniper.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 10:41 AM
> To: 'abdul_rahim@ccsi.canon.com'; dwyer@tatrc.org
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Free scenario
>
>
> With "no ip routing" on R2, then R2 would not be pingable. You must use IRB.
> (but there is definitely a hitch).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: abdul_rahim@ccsi.canon.com [mailto:abdul_rahim@ccsi.canon.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 5:35 PM
> To: dwyer@tatrc.org
> Cc: Brian Edwards; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Free scenario
>
>
>
> If we only enable bridging ( Transparent bridging ) and donot enable
> wouldn't that work
> There should be no ip routing on R2 and it will just bridge the IP packets
> from R1 to R3 and vice versa ,or IRB would be necesary in this scenario
>
>
>
>
>
> dwyer@tatrc.org (Lawrence Dwyer)@groupstudy.com on 08/14/2000 05:04:10 PM
>
> Please respond to dwyer@tatrc.org (Lawrence Dwyer)
>
> Sent by: nobody@groupstudy.com
>
>
> To: Brian Edwards <bedwards@juniper.net>
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> cc:
> Subject: Re: Free scenario
>
>
> How about IRB?
> Bridge group 1 the FR and E-net links, create a BVI 1 with the IP addy
> routing
> IP.
> Larry
>
> Brian Edwards wrote:
>
> > Here is a decent little scenario (IMHO). If you think it sucks, well you
> get
> > what you pay for. I would like to know how people resolved it (in case
> there
> > are other ways to do this that I didn't think about. Here it is...
> >
> > [R1]------[R2]------[R3]
> >
> > R1-R2 link is Frame Relay
> > R2-R3 is Ethernet
> > All three routers have interfaces on the 10.1.1.0/24 subnet and can ping
> > each other directly on that subnet.
> > Do not use proxy-ARP to solve the problem.
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:24:25 GMT-3